2025:UHC:6664 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/682/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Prem Kaushal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V. S. Pal, learned AGA with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder the State. 3. Present applicant ‘Jenish Chaudhary, son of Shri Jeet Bahadur Chaudhary,’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 16.09.2024 bearing FIR No. 0103 of 2024, Police Station – Tanakpur, District – Chamapwat, wherein present applicant along with one Ishwar Daugauhara have been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/21 read with Section 22 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated and the alleged contraband injection, which has been shown to be recovered though is of commercial quantity but there is no substantial compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly, Section 52A of the NDPS Act. He further submits that since the alleged prohibited injunction, shown to be recovered commercial one, therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into his way. In this regard, he submits that at the time of search and seizure, inventory was not prepared and there is no certification by the Magistrate. He further submits that charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation and furthermore, applicant is languishing in jail since 15.09.2024 and applicant has no previous criminal history. 5. On the previous date, State Counsel was directed to get instructions with regard to preparation of inventory and certification. 6. Today, Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State on the basis of written instructions, apprised to this Court that inventory was not prepared at the time of search and seizure and was prepared in the court. He further submits that even no such application was moved for certification of the inventory. He further submits that though preparation of inventory and certification is mandatory in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, but if there is lapse on this, this will not vitiate the trial. He further submits that present applicant has no previous criminal history. 2025:UHC:6664 7. In addition to this, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and on perusal of the counter affidavit, it reveals that inventory was not prepared immediately, after search and seizure and there is no certification of the inventory by the Magistrate. Apparently, this is a lapse on the part of the prosecution for not following the mandatory provision of the NDPS Act in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act but non compliance thereof will not vitiate the trial however, this aspect can be taken into consideration for granting the bail. 8. Since inventory was not prepared immediately after search and seizure and there is no certification of the inventory by the Magistrate, therefore, it is doubtful that applicant is involved in the alleged offence. Apart from this, State has already filed a detailed counter affidavit and applicant is languishing in jail since 15.09.2025 and has no previous criminal history, therefore, this Court is of the view that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not indulge in any such criminal activity. 9. In view of the discussion made above, since twin conditions, as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS are complied with, therefore, this Court is of the view that the 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 ‘‘Jenish Chaudhary, son of Shri Jeet Bahadur Chaudhary,’’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each 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 trial court proceeding on each and every date fixed before the trial court and will not take any unnecessary adjournment. If applicant fails to comply with the aforesaid condition, the trial court is free to proceed for cancelling the bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 30.07.2025. SKS