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. 370 of 2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Harshit Sanwal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant Kapil Rana, is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 16.12.2024, bearing FIR No. 41 of 2024 registered at P.S. Purola, Uttarkashi wherein the applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is 1kg 215.5 gm of charas. He submits that since the alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is commercial one, therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into his way. He submits that the alleged recovery as shown from the applicant is in day time but there is no independent witness which is highly impossible. Apart from this, he submits that inventory was not prepared in the prescribed form, i.e. Form-4 under Rule 8 of NDPS Rules 2022 and furthermore, the inventory was not certified by the Magistrate concerned rather it was certified by the Special Judge, NDPS, which is wholly impermissible and furthermore the certification, as shown, in the inventory is only by putting ‘seen by the concerned Special Judge. He submits that merely by putting an endorsement ‘seen’ on the inventory is not proper certification there should be proper application of mind of the concerned Magistrate while certifying the inventory. Apart from this he submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history, and if the applicant is enlarged on bail then there is less possibility that the applicant will indulge in the similar nature of offence in future. 5. In reference to the aforesaid argument, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that with regard to the inventory and certification there is a procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act which has not been properly complied with, since, inventory is not prepared in the prescribed form 4, and, furthermore there is no proper certification by the concerned Magistrate. He submits that though non compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act will not vitiate the trial but this aspect can be looked into while considering bail application. 6. On the other side, Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State has not disputed this fact that the certification was done by the concerned Magistrate by putting an endorsement of ‘seen’ in the inventory, however, he submits that non compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is not fatal to vitiate the trial. Apart from this, he has not disputed this fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history, and also apprise this Court that charge sheet has already been filed and, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 7. 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, though, it is not fatal to vitiate the trial, but this aspect can be looked into while deciding the bail application. Therefore, this Court is primary of the view since Section 52A is not substantially complied and, as such, there is reasonable ground that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence. Apart from this, the applicant has no previous criminal history and furthermore charge sheet has already been submitted, and, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, this court is of the view that if the applicant is bailed out he will not indulge in any such activities in future. 8. In such view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Kapil Rana, be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 10. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant will join the trial court proceeding on each and every date without seeking unnecessary adjournment and trial court will proceed with the trial without being influenced with the observations and discussion as made above. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 30.06.2025 Parul