2025:UHC:5608 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/674/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Kamlesh Budhlakoti, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharath Bisht, learned AGA with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder the State. 3. Present applicant ‘Anup Rawat, son of Shri Bachan Singh Rawat,’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 24.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 0015 of 2024, Police Station – Maneri, District – Uttarkashi wherein present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated and the contraband charas, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is above commercial quantity i.e. 1.115 kg, therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come in his way. He further submits that inventory was not prepared in the prescribed Form IV under Rule 8 of the “Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Search, Seizure, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 and the FIR number is reflected in inventory, which itself shows that inventory was not prepared at the time of search and seizure. He further submits that there is no proper certification by the concerned Magistrate since in the inventory there is only an endorsement of “seen” by the concerned Magistrate, which itself reveals that there is no separate application along with inventory report to get certification. He further submits that though non compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is not fatal and will not vitiate the trial but the same can be considered for considering the bail application, since in terms of Section 52 A (iv) of the NDPS Act, evidence collected are primary evidence, and as such, the inventory and it’s certification is also primary evidence. He further submits that if inventory is not prepared in the prescribed form and proper certification is not made by the Magistrate, then it is sufficient to draw an inference that applicant is not involved in committing the offence. Finally, while concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since there is no proper 2025:UHC:5608 substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and further, applicant has no previous criminal history, therefore, twin conditions as stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are complied with and applicant deserves for bail. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State submits that in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the applicant does not deserves for bail, as the contraband, which is recovered from the applicant, is above commercial quantity and there is proper compliance of procedure, as laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act and non compliance thereof will not vitiate the trial. However, he has not disputed this fact that inventory contains FIR number and for the purposes of certification only endorsement of “seen” is made by the concerned Magistrate and applicant has no previous criminal history. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that since there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, though non compliance thereof will not vitiate the trial but can be considered for bail and as such, there are reasonable grounds that the applicant is not involved in the offence as alleged, and furthermore, since applicant has no criminal history therefore, there is less possibility that in future, he will indulge in such activity while on bail, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant ‘Anup Rawat, son of Shri Bachan Singh Rawat,’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 9. It is made clear that after being released on bail, the applicant will attend trial 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 prosecution is free to move an application for cancellation of bail. It is further made clear that the trial court may proceed with the trial without being influenced by the observations as made above. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 02.07.2025. SKS 2025:UHC:5608