2025:UHC:5342 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. 811 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. None appears for the applicant. Ms. Sukhwani Singh is appointed as an Amicus Curiae in order to assist this court 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. . 4. The present applicant ‘Rakesh’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 29.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 68 of 2025, P.S. Sahaspur, District Dehradun, wherein, the present applicant was implicated for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. 5. It is submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and though the alleged contraband of charas which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is commercial one, therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into his way and in reference to this it is submitted that the applicant was arrested after the sunset without complying with the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which infact is mandatory. She further submits that a specific averment has been made to this effect in paragraph 12 of the bail application, but there is no any specific denial in the counter affidavit. 6. Apart from this, it is submitted that there is no proper compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Apart from this, it is also argued that the inventory was prepared at the spot and the inventory so prepared is not in the prescribed Form 4 under Rule 8 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules 2022. She further argued that the inventory report as it appears from the face of it is partially hand written and is not properly certified by the Magistrate since there is only an endorsement of seen of concerned Magistrate, which is certainly not as per the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 7. It is further argued by the learned Amicus Curiae that the applicant have no previous criminal 2025:UHC:5342 history and if the applicant is bailed out then there is less possibility that the applicant will repeat the crime. 8. On the other side, learned State counsel submits that the procedural lapse in following the procedure as prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act will not vitiate the trial and the same is subject matter of the trial and therefore in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act the applicant does not deserve for bail; however, learned State counsel have not disputed this fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history. 9. Inventory has been placed on record alongwith the counter affidavit and the same is partially handwritten and furthermore there is no proper certification by the Magistrate and only endorsement has been made therein and prima-facie it appears that there is no proper certification. 10. Consequently, after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the inventory and other material placed on record it appears that there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and as such this court is of the view that there are the reasonable grounds that the applicant is not guilty of the offence so alleged to be committed and since the applicant has no previous criminal history, therefore, if the applicant is bailed out, this court is of the view that the applicant will not repeat the offence. In view of the observations as above the twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of NDPS Act are fulfilled. 11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. It is made clear that ongoing trial will not be influence with observations as made above. 12. Let the applicant ‘Rakesh’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 24.06.2025 PR 2025:UHC:5342