SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA2 No. 196 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta and Mr. Syed Kashif Jafri and Ms. Irum Zeba, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Mohsin’ S/o Mohd. Raees is praying for regular bail in reference to First Information Report dated 18.11.2024 bearing FIR No. 449 of 2024, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under section 8/21 r/w section 60 of the NDPS Act. 4. Earlier the applicant moved the First Bail Application No. 52 of 2025, however, the same was rejected on 04.04.2025 and now the second bail application is moved. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 18.11.2024 and as such he already suffered long incarceration and since more than one year he is in jail. He also submits that in the earlier order whereby the first bail application was rejected the wrong impression was given that the applicant was wanted in Case Crime No. 194 of 2017, which is evident from page-11 of the objection, wherein, only two cases i.e. Case Crime No. 353 of 2022 and Case Crime No. 65 of 2024 has been shown. 6. He submits that the alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered, is a commercial quantity and as such section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into the way. In reference to section 37 of the NDPS Act he submits that there is no substantial compliance of section 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act. He submits that though the inventory was prepared but it was not properly certified as per Rule 8 of the 2022 Rules since in the inventory only an endorsement of ‘seen’ is put thereon. 7. He 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 while considering the bail application. With regard to the criminal history he submits that in two cases i.e. Case Crime No. 353 of 2022 and Case Crime No. 65 of 2024 the applicant is already bailed out and therefore, there is no any such possibility if he is released on bail he will indulge in any such activity in future. 8. On the other side, Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder, submits that endorsement of ‘seen’ has been put on the inventory by the concerned Magistrate but merely on the ground that the inventory was not certified by the Magistrate concerned in terms of Rule 8 of 2022 Rules the applicant does not deserve for bail particularly in terms of section 37 of the NDPS Act. He also submits that though the applicant is bailed out in other two criminal cases but since both the cases pertains to the NDPS Act, therefore, applicant cannot be granted bail particularly in terms of section 37 of the NDPS Act. 9. So far as the long incarceration is concerned, learned Brief Holder have not disputed that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 18.11.2024 and the charge-sheet has already been filed on 16.05.2025. 10. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that though the inventory was certified by the Magistrate but not in strict in terms of Rule 8 this aspect can be looked into while considering the bail application though it will not vitiate the trial and so far as the long incarceration is concerned, admittedly the applicant is in jail since 18.11.2024 and almost one year has been passed and the charge-sheet has been filed on 16.05.2025, therefore, there is no need of further interrogation. In such view of the matter, this court is of the view that twin conditions as stipulated under section 37 of NDPS Act is fulled, the applicant deserves for bail. 11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the instant second bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant ‘Mohsin’ be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 13. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall join the trial court proceeding on each and everyday without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 27.02.2026 PR