2025:UHC:8275 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA3/34/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pankaj Goswami and Mr. Deepak Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. This is third bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Suraj Prakash, S/o Mohan Singh seeking bail in reference to FIR dated 06.01.2025, bearing FIR No. 0004 of 2025, Police Station Chorgaliya, District Nainital wherein the present applicant along with two other persons, namely, Virender Singh Bisht and Mohammad Sariq Ansari have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20/60 of the NDPS Act. 4. First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.02.2025 whereas second bail application was dismissed on 19.05.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submits that the contraband (charas) which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant though commercial quantity but, in fact, there is no substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Apart from this, he submits that though the inventory was prepared but it was not certified by the Magistrate in proper manner since, Magistrate certified it by putting an endorsement of seen. Apart from this, he argued that even the inventory has not been prepared in the prescribed form 4 2025:UHC:8275 under Rule 8 of 2022 Rules. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has a criminal history of four cases out of which two cases relates to the NDPS Act in which he is already bailed out. He further submits that other two co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, though, contraband which was shown to be recovered from them were non commercial quantity. He further submits that charge sheet has already been filed, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant and the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.01.2025. He finally concluded his argument by submitting that since there is no substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, and, though, non compliance thereof will not vitiate the trial but this aspect can been looked into while considering the bail application. 6. On the other side, Mr. Vijay Khanduri learned Brief Holder for the State submits that there is proper substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act since inventory was prepared and certified by the Magistrate concerned, however, he has not disputed that while certifying the inventory the concerned Magistrate put an endorsement of seen on the same. With regard to criminal history, he has not disputed that the applicant has a criminal history of four cases out of which two cases relates to the NDPS Act in which he is bailed out. He further submits that though non compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is not fatal and will not vitiate the trial and the applicant does not deserve for bail in view of Section 37 of the Act since alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered is commercial one. 7. After hearing the arguments of the 2025:UHC:8275 learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that though the inventory was prepared but the same was certified by the Magistrate concerned by putting an endorsement of seen which clearly reveals that there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52 A of the Act though it is not fatal and will not vitiate the trial but this aspect can be looked into while considering the bail application. Apart from this, admittedly in this case charge sheet has already been filed and other two co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. So far as criminal history is concerned, in the previous cases applicant is already bailed out and in present case he is languishing in jail since 07.01.2025, and, since the charge sheet has been filed, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, therefore, in such an eventuality this Court is of the view that twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are complied with, firstly on the ground that inventory was prepared but was not properly certified by the concerned Magistrate and further applicant has a criminal antecedent and in all of them he is bailed out, therefore, if the applicant is enlarged on bail there is no possibility that he will indulge in any such activity in future. Since, twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are complied with, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Suraj Prakash be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 2025:UHC:8275 10. It is made clear that after being released on bail if the applicant is found indulge in any such activity the trial court is free to take immediate action against the applicant including cancellation of bail. It is further made clear that the trial court may proceed and conclude the trial without being influence with the observations as made above. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 17.09.2025 Parul