2025:UHC:6163 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. 524 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, 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–Raj Gupta S/o Shri Sunil Gupta, is seeking bail in relation to first information report dated 08.02.2025 bearing FIR No.0012 of 2025, Police Station Kotwali, District Bageshwar, wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/20 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 the alleged recovered contraband is commercial one i.e. 1.29 kilogram of Charas, but there is no substantial compliance of mandatory provision of the NDPS Act. 5. He further submits that after search and seizure, the inventory was not prepared strictly in the prescribed format of Form-4 as prescribed under Rule 8 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal), Rules, 2022, and, furthermore, there is no proper certification by the Magistrate concerned, since in the inventory, there is an endorsement of “seen” by the Magistrate. 6. Apart from this, he submits that the certification by making an endorsement of “seen” in the inventory reveals that the 2025:UHC:6163 Magistrate has not applied his mind while certifying the inventory. He also submits that though non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS will not vitiate the trial, but this aspect can look into while considering the bail. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that since there is no substantial compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, therefore, there are the reasonable grounds to show that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence. Apart from this, he submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedent, therefore, if the applicant is bailed out, there are less possibilities that he will repeat the crime. 8. On the other side, Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned AGA, opposed the bail application by submitting that since the alleged contraband, which is recovered from the applicant, is commercial one, therefore in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the applicant does not deserve for bail. Apart from this, he submits that though Section 52-A has been fully complied with but even otherwise if there is non-compliance of Section 52-A, it will not vitiate the trial. 9. He has also not disputed this fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history. 10. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that, prima facie, there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, since the inventory was certified by the Magistrate concerned 2025:UHC:6163 by putting an endorsement “seen”, and as such this Court is primarily of the view that though non compliance of Section 52- A will not vitiate the trial and be a subject matter of the trial, but this aspect can be looked into to examine as to whether primarily the applicant is guilty for the offence or not for considering the bail application, and as such, there are the reasonable ground that the applicant is not involved in the alleged offence . 11. So far as the other condition as stipulated under Section 37 is concerned with regard to the criminal antecedents, since the applicant has no previous criminal history, therefore, if the applicant is bailed out, there is no such possibility that he will repeat the similar nature of offence while on bail, however, for that purposes some stringent conditions can be imposed. Thus, in view of the observation as made above since twin condition, as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, is complied with, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant, namely, Raj Gupta, 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. 14. It is made clear that after being released on bail, if the applicant is found to be indulged in any such activity and will not appear before the trial Court, then 2025:UHC:6163 the trial Court is directed to take immediate steps for cancelling bail. Apart from this, the trial Court may proceed with the trial without being influenced with the observation as above. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 15.07.2025 R.Bisht