2025:UHC:10237 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 / 1 3 3 3 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Rak esh Th apliyal, J. 1. Mr. Rohit Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Deepk Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant – Irshan, S/ o Irfan, is seeking bail in relation to first information report dated 14.01.2025 bearing FI R/ Case Crime No. 0002 of 2025, Police Station Dhumakot, District Pauri Garhwal, wherein the present applicant along with one Prince Kumar Dagar and Shehjad have been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/ 20 read with Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submits that three persons are named in the FIR including applicant and the recovery of 79.200 kg of Ganja is shown from their joint recovery, however, there is no substantial compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. 5. He argued that since the alleged contraband is commercial one, therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into his way. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in this particular case though the inventory was prepared but the same was handwritten and not in the prescribed format of Form-4 as prescribed under Rule 8 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal), Rules, 2022, and, furthermore, there is no proper certification by the Magistrate concerned, since there is an endorsement of seen on the first page of the inventory by the 2025:UHC:10237 concerned Magistrate. 7. Apart from this, he submits that merely by making an endorsement of “seen” in the inventory, that too, in the first page clearly reveals that firstly, the concerned Investigating Officer has not moved separate application along with inventory for it’s certification, and, furthermore, the concerned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind while certifying the inventory. 8. He also submits that non-compliance of Section52A of the NDPS though is not fatal and will not vitiate the trial, but this aspect can be looked into while considering the bail. He further submits that the applicant has criminal history of three cases with similar nature of allegation in which he is already bailed 9. He further submits that objections have already been filed by the prosecution in the present case and if the applicant is bailed out then there is no such possibility that the applicant will misuse the bail and will repeat the crime. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the investigation has already been completed and the chargesheet has been filed and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 14.01.2025 and at this juncture, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant and be enlarged on bail. 11. He further submits that co-accused Prince Kumar Dagar and Shehjad have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and applicant has identical role as that of co accused, since this is a case of joint recovery. 12. On the other side, Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State submits that the applicant does not deserve for bail in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, however, he has not disputed this fact that the inventory was certified by the Magistrate concerned by putting “seen” in the first page of the 2025:UHC:10237 inventory. So far as the criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, he also submits that the applicant has criminal history of three cases of similar nature of allegation. 13. Though non-compliance of Section 52- A of the NDPS Act will not vitiate the trial but this aspect can be looked into only for limited purposes for considering the bail application. 14. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration particularly the inventory and its certification, this Court is of the view that in view of the discussion as made above the twin conditions, as stipulated under Section 37, are fulfilled, since the inventory was not prepared in the prescribed Form-4 as prescribed under Rule 8 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal), Rules, 2022, and, furthermore, there is no proper certification, therefore, there are the reasonable grounds that the applicant is not involved in the alleged offence, and, furthermore, if the applicant is bailed out, there is no such possibility that he will repeat the similar nature of offence while on bail, however, for that purposes some stringent conditions can be imposed. Thus, in view of the discussion as above since twin conditions, as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are complied with, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant, namely, “Irshan” be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 17. It is made clear that after being released on bail, the present applicant 2025:UHC:10237 shall report to the concerned nearest police station on the first day of every month and the concerned SHO shall record his presence, failing which, the concerned SHO is directed to move an application either before this Court or before the trial Court for cancellation of bail. It is further made clear that trial Court may proceed with the trial without being influenced with the observations and discussions as made above. ( Rak esh Th apliy al, J.) 1 8 .1 1 .2 0 2 5 Parul