SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 2523 of 2024 With BA1 No. 2415 of 2024 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Rajat Mittal and Bharat Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Both the applicants- Pankaj Dhiman and Vikas Dhiman are praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 08.11.2024, bearing FIR No. 0023 of 2024, registered at P.S. Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal wherein both the applicants have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20/29/60 of the NDPS Act. 4. Mr. Rajat Mittal learned counsel for the applicant argued that the recovery of alleged contraband ‘charas’ shown to be recovered from five persons, namely, Vikas Dhiman (present applicant), Pankaj Dhiman (present applicant), Boby Kumar, Bablesh and Vivek Kumar and it was a joint recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the applicants are real brother and are innocent, which is evident from the fact that the alleged contraband recovered to be shown is a joint recovery from five persons and submits that there is no substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, since, the inventory was not prepared in the form as prescribed under Rule 8 of NDPS (Search Seizure sampling and disposal) Rules 2022, and furthermore in the inventory report there is a reference of FIR no. also which itself reveals that at the time of search and seizure the inventory was not prepared. In addition to this he further submits that not only this even the inventory was not properly certified by the concerned Magistrate, since, endorsement of seen has been put by the learned Magistrate in the inventory report. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed. Further, inventory report has been placed before this Court by Mr. Sain, learned Brief Holder. This Court also perused the same. On perusal of the same it reveals that in the inventory there is a FIR number as well as endorsement of concerned Magistrate by putting ‘seen’. 6. On perusal of Rule 8 it reveals that there should be a proper certification by the Magistrate concerned for which the I.O. has to move an application along with the inventory report but in this case no such application has been moved. In reference to this, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance in one of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Amble vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2025) SCC Online SC 110 which was also followed by this Court. 7. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the applicants are real brother and both of them have no previous criminal history. He submits that since both the applicants have no previous criminal history and if they bailed out there is less possibility that they will indulge in any such activities in future. 8. On the other side, Mr. Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State has not disputed this fact that there is no proper certification of the inventory except the endorsement made by the Magistrate concerned. Apart from this, he has not disputed about the criminal antecedent of the applicants and submits that both the applicants have no previous criminal history. 9. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, and, in view of the observations as made above, this Court is primarily of the view that the applicants are not guilty of the offence as alleged. Furthermore, both the applicants have no previous criminal history, therefore, in such an eventuality if the applicants are bailed out there is less possibility that in future they will indulge in any such activities, thus, since the twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are complied with in view of the discussion as made above, therefore, this Court is of the view that both the applicants deserves for bail. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the bail applications are allowed. 11. Let the applicants-Pankaj Dhiman and Vikas Dhiman be released on bail on their executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties by each one of them in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 12. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall join the proceeding of the trial court on each and every date and will not seek unnecessary adjournment failing which the trial court is directed to proceed against the applicant including cancellation of bail in accordance with law. It is further made clear that the trial court shall proceed with the trial without being influenced with the observations as made above. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 26.06.2025 Parul