2025:UHC:6144 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. 737 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Kusharg Gupta’ S/o Vinod Kumar Gupta is praying for bail in relation to First Information Report dated 09.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 0041 of 2025, P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Sections 8/21 r/w Section 29 and 60 of NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is 20 grams of Cocaine, which is a non-commercial quantity and 7 LSD 0.16 grams, which is a commercial quantity. He further submits that since the recovery as alleged is a commercial quantity, therefore Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into his way. 5. He argued that there is no substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act since the inventory was not prepared strictly in the prescribed Form-4 as prescribed under Rule 8 of Rules of 2022 and furthermore the inventory has not been properly satisfied by the Magistrate concerned since only the endorsement of seen is made in the inventory report by the Magistrate concerned. He submits that merely by putting endorsement of seen by the concerned Magistrate clearly reveals that the Magistrate while certifying the inventory has not applied its mind. He submits that since there is no substantial compliance of Section 52A, therefore, there are reasonable ground that the applicant is involved in the offence as alleged. 6. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant was taken into custody on 08.03.2025 but 2025:UHC:6144 the arrest has been shown on 09.03.2025 regarding which a written complaint was made by father of the applicant to the I.G., Garhwal Region on 03.04.2025, but no action has been taken on the complaint in which he has raised the allegations against one of the official, who make search and recovery from the applicant. 7. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is bailed out then there is no any such possibility that he will be indulged in any criminal activity in future. 8. On the other side, Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder submits that the applicant does not deserve for bail in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act since the alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant, is a commercial quantity, however, he has not disputed this fact that the inventory was certified by the Magistrate concerned by putting endorsement of seen in the inventory. Mr. Himanshu Sain has also not disputed this fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history. 9. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the inventory as well as its certification prima-facie this court is of the view that there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52A and this aspect can be looked into while considering the bail though non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act will not vitiate the trial, therefore, this court is of the view that there are reasonable ground that the applicant is not involved in the alleged offence. 10. Apart from this applicant has no previous criminal history, which has been admitted by the learned State counsel, therefore this court is of the view that if the applicant is bailed out then in such an eventuality there is no such probability that the applicant will be indulge in such activity. 11. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the discussions as made above, since the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is complied with, therefore, this court is of the view 2025:UHC:6144 that the applicant deserves for bail. 12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant Kusharg Gupta 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 if the applicant is found to be indulged in any such criminal activity of similar nature the concerned Magistrate is free to cancel the bail and further Trial Court will proceed with the trial without being influence with the observation as made above. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 15.07.2025 PR 2025:UHC:6144