2025:UHC:5329 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. 585 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Manoj Singh Bisht’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 24.01.2025 bearing FIR No. 18 of 2025 P.S. Lalkuaan, District Nainital, wherein, the present applicant along with one Lucky were implicated for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 r/w Section 29 of NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and though the alleged contraband charas which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is commercial one but there is no substantial compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act. He further submits that the inventory was prepared at the time of search and seizure that too was not in the prescribed Form 4 in terms of Rule 8 of NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. 5. Apart from this, he submits that even there is no proper certification of the Magistrate, which infact is a mandatory requirement as per Section 52A of the NDPS Act since the Magistrate concerned only put an endorsement of seal and this does not amount to the certification of the inventory since before certification the Magistrate concerned has not applied his mind. 6. Apart from this, Mr. Saurabh Pandey submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history. He further submits that the alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is commercial one and in such an eventuality in terms of Section 37 will come to in his way but here in this case since there is no compliance of Section 52A since the inventory was not prepared in the prescribed form of the Rules of 2022, furthermore there is no proper certification and which itself reveals that the applicant has not 2025:UHC:5329 committed the offence as alleged 7. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and at this juncture if the applicant is enlarged on bail then there is no such possibility that the applicant will repeat the said crime. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.01.2025. Finally, he concluded his argument by submitting that since there is no proper compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and furthermore the applicant has no previous criminal history therefore, the twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are fulfilled and the applicant deserve for bail. 8. On the other side, learned State counsel oppose the bail application by submitting that in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act the applicant does not deserve for bail. He further submits that non-compliance of Section 52A is not fatal and it will not vitiate the trial, therefore, on this account also the applicant does not deserve for bail. 9. This is fully agree with the submission advanced by the learned State counsel that non- compliance of Section 52A of the Act will not vitiate the trial but non-compliance of Section 52A may be considered for considering the bail application. 10. As per Section 52A(4) of NDPS Act whatever be the evidence are collected are the primary evidence and the preparation of inventory and its certification though are mandatory requirement and are the subject matter of the trial but this aspect can be taken into consideration for considering whether the applicant is involved in the said offence. 11. After perusing the inventory report and its certification wherein the Magistrate concerned put endorsement of seal, this court is of the view there is no proper certification by the Magistrate concerned and furthermore on perusal of the inventory it reveals the same is not in the prescribed Form 4 and, therefore, this court is primarily of the view that there are the reasonable grounds that the applicant is not involved in the said offence. Furthermore, since the applicant has no previous criminal history and at this juncture if the applicant is bailed out this court is of the view that the applicant will not repeat the crime while on bail. Thus, the twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are fulfilled and as such the applicant deserves for bail. 2025:UHC:5329 12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant ‘Manoj Singh Bisht’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 14. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant will cooperate with the part pending investigation and if he found to be indulged in any such activity the prosecution is directed to immediately move an application for cancellation of bail and take immediate steps in this regard. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 24.06.2025 PR 2025:UHC:5329