Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17235 (UTT)

MOHAMMED RAFI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1084/2025 · 2025-11-28

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:10605 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 No. 1 0 8 4 of 2 0 2 5 Hon 'ble Rak esh Th apliyal, J. (Through V.C.) 1. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey and Ms. Sheetal Selwal and Mr. Sandeep Adikari (Legal Aid) (HCLSA) learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant Mohammed Rafi, S/ o Mohammed Shakil is praying for bail in relation to FIR dated 16.03.2025, bearing FIR No. 0082 of 2025, registered at P.S. Kiccha, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/ 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and is languishing in jail since 16.03.2025. He further submits that the alleged prohibited drugs, which is shown to be recovered, is a commercial quantity, therefore, in such an eventuality Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act will be applicable. In reference to Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act, he submits that firstly the inventory has not been properly certified since the concerned Magistrate put an endorsement of ‘seen’ in the inventory report. He submits that the manner in which the Judicial Magistrate certified the inventory is not in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. He also submits that the inventory was also not prepared in the prescribed Form-4 under 2025:UHC:10605 Rule 8 of NDPS Rules 2022 and as such, there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that though non compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is not fatal and will not vitiate the trial, but this aspect can be looked into while considering the bail application. Apart from this, it is submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and as such if the applicant is enlarged on bail, then there is no such possibility that he will indulge in such activities in future. Learned counsel concluded his argument by submitting that the twin condition as stipulated under Section 52A of the NDPS Act are now fully complied with therefore, the applicant deserves for bail. 5. On the other side, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State submits that there is proper substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and whether it was properly certified by the Magistrate or not this is the subject matter for trial, however, he has not disputed that inventory was certified by putting endorsement of “seen” in the inventory. Apart from this, Mr. Sandhu submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history. 6. 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 applicant is not guilty of the offence as alleged. Furthermore, the applicant has no previous criminal history, therefore, in such an eventuality if the applicant is bailed out there is less possibility that in future he will indulge in any such activities, thus, since the twin conditions 2025:UHC:10605 as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are complied with in view of the discussion as made above, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant “Mohammed Rafi” be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 9. It is further made clear that the trial court proceed with the trial independently without being influenced with the observation as made above. Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 28.11.2025 Nahid 2025:UHC:10605