2025:UHC:5395 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/433/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Siddharth Bisht, learned A.G.A, and Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant Nar Singh, S/o Diwan Singh is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 03.01.2025, registered as FIR No. 03 of 2025, at P.S. Haldwani District Nainital wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/20/60 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the alleged contraband, “charas” which is shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant is a commercial quantity, and, as such, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into his way. In reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, since, after preparation of the inventory no separate application has been moved before the Magistrate for certification of inventory, and, furthermore, in the inventory report there is an endorsement of the Magistrate ‘seen’ which itself reveals that there is no proper application of mind while certifying the inventory. 5. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is bailed out then there is less possibility that the applicant will indulge in any such activities in future. Learned 2025:UHC:5395 counsel for the applicant advanced his arguments by referring Section 52A of the NDPS Act that there is no proper substantial compliance, therefore, one of the condition, as stipulated, under Section 37 of the Act is fulfilled and so far as other condition is concerned, since, applicant has no previous criminal history, therefore, this aspect may be considered for granting bail to the applicant. 6. Mr. Bisht, learned A.G.A. seriously opposed the bail application by submitting that since the alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is commercial one, therefore, non compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is not fatal and will not vitiate trial, therefore, on this ground alone the applicant does not deserve for bail. So far as criminal antecedent is concerned, learned AGA has not disputed on this. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of Section 52 A of the Act and in view of the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court that non compliance of Section 52A is not fatal and will not vitiate trial but this aspect can be looked into to examine whether there are reasonable ground that the applicant is not guilty of the offence as alleged. On plain reading of Section 52A read with Rule 8 under Chapter III of NDPS (Search Seizure sampling and disposal) Rules 2022, prima facie the procedure has to be followed since by virtue of Section 52A(4) of the NDPS Act whatever be evidences are collected same are treated to be primary evidences. On perusal of the inventory report it reveals that there is only reference of ‘seen’ by the concerned Magistrate which itself reveals that no application was moved for seeking certification, and, as such, the Magistrate concerned has not applied his mind properly, however, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court these aspects are fatal 2025:UHC:5395 for vitiating the trial but can be looked into for considering the bail application. 8. In view of the above discussion, and taking into consideration that the inventory was not certified by the Magistrate concerned, this Court is of the view that there are reasonable ground that the applicant is not prima facie appears to guilty of the offence, as alleged, and furthermore since the applicant has no previous criminal history, in such an eventuality if the applicant is enlarged on bail then there is less possibility that the applicant will indulge in future in any such activities. 9. In view of the above discussion since twin condition as stipulated under Section 37 of the Act are fulfilled and as such applicant deserves for bail. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant “Nar Singh” be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of 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 trial court is directed to proceed against the applicant including cancellation of bail in accordance with law and proceed with the trial without being influenced with the observations as made above. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 25.06.2025 Parul 2025:UHC:5395