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. 253 of 2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel and Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant Moti Lal @ Monu who is languishing in jail since 29.12.2024 is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 29.12.2024, bearing FIR No. 26 of 2024 registered at P.S. Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal, wherein the applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20/29 and 60 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the recovery shown was a joint recovery and the alleged contraband which was shown to be recovered from the present applicant is 2kg 200 gm of charas. She further submits that there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, since, the inventory was not prepared in the prescribed Form-4 under Rule 8 of NDPS Rules 2022 and, furthermore, there is no proper certification since the concerned Magistrate put an endorsement of ‘seen’ in the inventory report. She further submits that putting endorsement of ‘seen’ by the concerned Magistrate for the purpose of certification of the inventory is completely against the mandate of the rules which itself reveals that no proper application was moved by the concerned official for the purposes of certification of inventory. She further submits that though non compliance of Section 52A is not fatal and will not vitiate the trial but this aspect can be looked into for considering the bail application. She further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history. She further argued that since alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered from the applicant is commercial one, therefore, condition as stipulated under Section 37 of the Act has to be dealt with. 5. In reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since there is no substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which itself reveals that the applicant is not guilty of the offence as alleged. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application and submits that in term of Section 37 of the Act, the applicant does not deserve for bail, as the alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered from the applicant is commercial one, however, he has not disputed this fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and further taking into consideration that inventory so prepared was not in the proper form as prescribed in form 4 in terms of Rule 8 of NDPS Rules 2022, and, furthermore, there is no proper certification of the Magistrate concerned, since only there is an endorsement of ‘seen’ in the inventory report which itself reveals that there is no separate application for seeking certification of the inventory. Thus, this Court, primarily, of the view that there are reasonable ground that the applicant is not guilty of the offence as alleged. Apart from this, admittedly the applicant has no previous criminal history, therefore, this Court is of the view that if the applicant is bailed out he will not indulge in any such criminal activities during bail, however, this Court is of the view that some stringent condition should be imposed while granting bail. 8. In view of the discussion and observations as made above, this Court is of the view that since twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are complied with and, as such, the applicant deserves for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicants- Moti Lal @ Monu be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties 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 prosecution is free to move bail cancellation application. It is further directed that the trial court will proceed with the trial without being influenced with the observations, as made above. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 30.06.2025 Parul