SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1No.278 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Bobby Kumar’ S/o Shyam Lal is praying for bail in relation to First Information Report dated 08.11.2024 bearing FIR No. 0023 of 2024 registered at P.S. Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal, wherein, he has been implicated along with four others for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 r/w Section 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered i.e. charasthough is a commercial quantity but infact it was a joint recovery from five persons namely Vikas Dhiman, Pankaj Dhiman, the present applicant, Bablesh and Vivek Kumar. She argued that there is no substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act since the inventory was not prepared in the Form as prescribed under Rule 8 of the NDPS (Search, Seizure sampling and disposal) Rules 2022 and furthermore in the inventory report there is reference of FIR number, which itself reveals that at the time of search and seizure the inventory was not prepared. 5. In addition to this, she also argued that even the inventory was not certified with due application of mind by the Magistrate concerned since only the endorsement of ‘seen’ has been put by the magistrate concerned on it. 6. A detail counter affidavit has been filed by the State and the inventory report is also placed before this court and perused the same, on perusal of which it reveals in the inventory there is a FIR number as well as endorsement of seen of the Magistrate concerned. 7. On perusal of Rule 8 it reveals that there should be a proper certification by the Magistrate concerned for which the I.O. has to move an application along with the inventory report but in this case no such application has been moved. In reference to this, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance in one of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Amble vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2025) SCC Online SC 110 which was also followed by this court. 8. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant fairly submits that the applicant has a previous case relating to the same nature of allegation but in the same he has already bailed out in the year 2022 and it was never been misused and so far as the present case is concerned the recovery as shown is nothing but a planted one. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that out of total five accused persons three co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this court, which has not been disputed by Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder. 10. On the other side, Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder argued that non- compliance of Section 52A with regard to the preparation of the inventory and its certification is not so fatal and will not vitiate the trial, therefore, in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act the applicant does not deserve for bail. With regard to the criminal antecedents of the applicant Mr. Himanshu Sain argued that in reference to the earlier case the applicant is already bailed out in the year 2022. 11. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52 of NDPS Act and as such this court is primarily of the view that there are reasonable grounds that the applicant is not guilty of the offence as alleged. So far as the criminal antecedent is concerned admittedly in the previous case the applicant was already bailed out in the year 2022 and since in the present case the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.11.2024 and taking into consideration that he has already suffered long incarceration and further taking into consideration that the other three co-accused persons have already been granted bail, therefore, this court is of the view that the long incarceration which the applicant has suffered reveals that if the applicant is bailed out there is no such possibility that he will indulge in any such criminal activity in future. 12. 12. In view of the discussion as made above, since the twin condition as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are complied with, therefore, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant ‘Bobby Kumar’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 15. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall join the trial court proceeding on each and every date and will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and if he is found to be indulged in any such criminal activity the Trial Court is free to proceed against the applicant to cancel the bail.Apart from this trial court may proceed with the trial without being influenced with the observation as above. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 14.08.2025 PR