2025:UHC:5328 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. 239 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned AGA along with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant–Sahwan S/o Shri Dilshad, is seeking bail in relation to first information report dated 28.12.2024 bearing FIR No.0702 of 2024, Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar, wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/22/29 and 27(a) 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 and the alleged recovered prohibited drugs though are commercial one, but there is no substantial compliance of mandatory provision of the NDPS Act. 5. Apart from this, he submits that since the alleged prohibited drug, which was shown to be recovered from the present applicant, is commercial one, therefore, in such an eventuality, Section 37 of the NDPS will come into his way and in reference to this, he submits that in this case, though the inventory was prepared after the search and seizure but the inventory was not certified by the Magistrate concerned, which, in fact, is the mandatory requirement as per Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Apart from this, he 2025:UHC:5328 submits that even the procedure as laid down in terms of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal), Rules, 2022 has not been followed, and, furthermore, the inventory has not been prepared in prescribed Form-4. So far as the criminal antecedents are concerned, Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant makes statement at Bar that the applicant has no previous criminal history. 6. He further submits that since there is no substantial compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, and, furthermore, the inventory is not prepared in the prescribed Form-4 and is not certified by the Magistrate concerned and all the evidences collected under Section 52-A are the primary evidences in terms of Section 52(4) of NDPS Act, therefore, one of the conditions as stipulated under Section 37 is fulfilled, since non compliance of the procedure and non-certification of the inventory, so prepared, clearly reveals that there are the reasonable grounds to show that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence. He also submits that since the present applicant has no criminal antecedent, therefore, if the applicant is bailed out, there are no such possibility that he will repeat the crime. 7. He further submits that since both the conditions, as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are fulfilled, and, therefore, the applicant deserves for bail. 8. On the other side, Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned AGA, argued that non- 2025:UHC:5328 compliance of the procedure as laid down under Section 52-A and the Rules, will not vitiate the trial and the same is only the subject matter of the trial, therefore, in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the applicant does not deserve for bail. He also submits that the charge- sheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 9. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties particularly in reference to the compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, no doubt non compliance of Section 52-A will not vitiate the trial and the same is subject matter of the trial, but this aspect can be looked into for examine as to whether primarily the applicant is guilty for the offence or not for considering the bail application. 10. So far as the other condition as stipulated under Section 37 is concerned with regard to the criminal antecedents, since the applicant has no previous criminal history, therefore, if the applicant is bailed out, there is less possibility that he will repeat the crime while on bail, however, for that purposes some stringent conditions can be imposed. Thus, in view of the observation as made above particularly in reference to the non-compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and the Rules of 2022, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 2025:UHC:5328 12. Let the applicant, namely, Sahwan, 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. 13. It is made clear that after being released on bail, if the applicant is found to be indulged in any such activity and will not appear before the trial Court, then the trial Court is directed to take immediate steps for cancelling of bail. 14. It is also made clear that the trial Court will not be influenced with the observation as made above and conclude the trial on its own merit. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 24.06.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:5328