2025:UHC:6131 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/758/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharath Bisht, learned AGA with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder the State. 3. Present applicant ‘Narain Singh, son of late Shri Guman Singh’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 26.09.2024 bearing FIR No. 0020 of 2024, Police Station – Dwarahat, District – Almora 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. 1.482 kg, therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into 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 and furthermore, the Magistrate concerned without application of mind put an endorsement of “seen” in the inventory. 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 2025:UHC:6131 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. Apart from this, he further submits that the charge-sheet was not filed within 180 days and applicant’s remand was extended till 22.03.2025 and now, the charge sheet has been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.09.2024 5. He further submits that since there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and further, applicant has no previous criminal history, and if he is bailed out he will not misuse the bail, therefore, since twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are complied with therefore, applicant deserves for bail. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State have not disputed that since the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and furthermore, applicant has no previous criminal history and inventory was prepared on the spot and it contained FIR number and for the purposes of certification only endorsement of “seen” is made by the concerned Magistrate but he has denied that there is no proper compliance of procedure, as laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 7. After hearing the arguments of 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 and inventory was not prepared in the prescribed Form IV under Rule 8 of Rules, 2022 and further, it contains FIR number 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 2025:UHC:6131 bail, and is languishing in jail 26.09.2024, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant ‘Narain Singh, son of late Shri Guman Singh’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 10. 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 trial court is free to cancel the bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 15.07.2025. SKS