2025:UHC:5341 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. 420 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Parikshit Saini and 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–Rabbani S/o Shri Liyakat, is seeking bail in relation to first information report dated 28.10.2024 bearing FIR No.1108 of 2024, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, wherein the present applicant along with Chetan Singh and Ankur Pal have been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/22 read with Section 60 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, furthermore, the charge-sheet has already been filed against the present applicant, however, the investigation is still going on against the other co-accused, namely, Chetan Singh and Ankur Pal. 5. He further submits that the charge- sheet has been filed in a very hurried manner, which itself reveals that the part pending investigation is going on against the remaining co-accused, though as per Section 173 of the Cr.P.C, only on the completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet can be filed. Apart from this, he submits that the alleged prohibited drug, which was shown to be recovered from the present applicant, is a commercial quantity, and, therefore, in such an eventuality, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into his way and in reference to 2025:UHC:5341 this, he submits that in terms of Section 52- A, though the inventory was prepared, but the inventory is handwritten and is not in a prescribed format of Form-4 as prescribed under Rule 8 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal), Rules, 2022. He also submits that not only this, even the handwritten inventory was not certified by the Magistrate concerned, which is also one of the mandatory requirement in terms of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that since there is no substantial compliance of Section 52-A and the inventory was handwritten and was not certified by the Magistrate, therefore, there is no proper compliance of Section 52-A, though the evidences collected are the primary evidence in terms of Section 52-A(4) of the NDPS Act, and as such, it itself reveals that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence. Apart from this, with regard to another condition as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is bailed out, then there is less possibility that after being released on bail, the applicant will repeat the offence. 7. On the other side, Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned AGA, vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that since the alleged prohibited drugs, which was shown to be recovered from the present applicant, is commercial one, therefore, in terms of Section 37, the applicant does not deserve for bail. So far as the criminal antecedent is concerned, learned AGA has not disputed that the applicant has no previous criminal 2025:UHC:5341 history. 8. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, since the inventory is handwritten, that too is not in prescribed form Form-4 under Rule 8 Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal), Rules, 2022, and, furthermore, there is also no certification by the Magistrate concerned of the inventory, so prepared, therefore, this Court is of the view that the first condition as stipulated under Section 37 is fulfilled since non-compliance of Section 52-A is also one of the factor for deciding the bail application. After perusing the inventory report, which was not certified by the Magistrate, this Court is of the view that there are the reasonable grounds that the applicant is not involved in this offence. So far as the other condition is concerned, since the applicant has no previous criminal history, therefore, this Court is of the view that if the applicant is bailed out, there is a less possibility that the applicant will repeat the offence. Thus, in view of the observation as made above, since twin condition as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are fulfilled, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant, namely, Rabbani, 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. 11. It is made clear that after being released 2025:UHC:5341 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 the bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 24.06.2025 R.Bisht