2025:UHC:5117 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/134/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Neeraj Singh Kaira, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State. 3. Present applicant Lalit Prasad, son of late Ratan Ram, is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 03.01.2025 bearing FIR No. 06 of 2025, Police Station – Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar wherein applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 8 / 20 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and though the alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered from the applicant is of commercial quantity but the procedure, as laid down under Section 52A NDPS Act read with Rule 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage and Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, has not been complied with, which, in fact, is mandatory. 5. Apart from this, he submits that inventory, which has been placed on record, by the respondent by way of supplementary affidavit is not in the prescribed Form 4 under Rule 8. He further submits that as per Rule 8 of the 2022 Rules, after seizure, the material should be forwarded to the Officer In-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act for the purposes of preparation of inventory of such material in Form 4 and then apply to the Magistrate, at the earliest, under sub-section (2) of Section 52A for certification. He by giving reference of the seizure memo further submits that inventory was prepared at the time of search and seizure, though after search and seizure, the material should be forwarded to the Officer Incharge of the nearest police station for the purposes of preparation of inventory of such material in Form 4. He further submits that preparation of inventory at the spot is 2025:UHC:5117 apparently against the mandate of Rule 8 of Rules, 2022. He further submits that applicant has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 02.01.2025. He further submits that in the inventory, there is reference of FIR No., which is highly improbable because as per search and seizure memo, inventory was prepared on the spot. 6. On the other side, Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State has not disputed this fact that in fact, under Rule 8, inventory should not be prepared at the time of search and seizure, whatever the material has been collected during search, that should be forwarded to the Officer Incharge of the nearest police station for the purposes of preparation of inventory but he submits that it may be a procedural lapse, which will not vitiate either the charge sheet or trial, and is the subject matter of the trial. 7. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and further taking into consideration the fact that on comparing the search and seizure memo with the inventory report that creates so many doubts. Preparation of the inventory report on the spot though may be a procedural lapse but the benefit of procedural lapse on the part of the prosecution while preparing the inventory on the spot should go to the accused only for the purpose of considering the bail application and not for other purposes because ultimately whatever be the procedural lapse that will be subject matter of the trial. 8. Since, alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered from the applicant is commercial one, therefore, before considering the bail application twin condition as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS has to be dealt with. This Court recently in two bail applications, i.e., BA1 No. 513 of 2025 and BA1 No. 556 of 2025 decided on 22.05.2025 considered all the precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court and comes to the conclusion that procedural lapse particularly in reference to Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act will not vitiate the trial but other factors can be taken into consideration for grant of bail. 9. Non compliance of the procedure, as prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act is certainly the subject matter of the trial but 2025:UHC:5117 primarily in view of the submission as advanced by the counsel for the applicant that there is no substantial compliance of Section 52A of the Act, this Court is of the view that there are reasonable ground available which reveals that the applicant primarily not guilty of the offence as alleged. This is one of the condition, as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 10. The other condition as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is whether there is any possibility to commit any offence if the applicant is enlarged on bail. In this regard since the applicant has no previous criminal history and if he is admitted to bail, this Court is primarily of the view that the applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant ‘Lalit Prasad’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 18.06.2025. Parul 2025:UHC:5117