UKHC010076902026 2026:UHC:5349 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2/63/2026 Suraj Kumar --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. with Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The instant second bail application has been moved by the present applicant ‘Suraj Kumar’ S/o Sushil Kumar praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 28.11.2025 bearing FIR No. 0289 of 2025 P.S. Kotwali Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, wherein, the present applicant along with one Arun Kandwal were implicated for the offence punishable under section 8/22 of NDPS Act. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act has not been complied with and the recovery as shown with regard to the contraband is completely false. He further submits that the alleged contraband though is commercial quantity of 6000 taramadol capsules, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant and as such the rider of section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into the way for which the twin conditions as stipulated therein has to be fulfilled. He submits that the first condition is with regard to the compliance of section 52A of the NDPS Act under which though the inventory was prepared but was certified by the Magistrate only by UKHC010076902026 2026:UHC:5349 putting an endorsement of ‘seen’, which is not as per the Rule 8 of NDPS Rules of 2022. The Magistrate certified by putting ‘seen’ is not substantial compliance of section 52A of the NDPS Act, which itself shows that the Magistrate while certifying the inventory has not applied his judicial mind and this aspect can be looked into while considering the bail application though is not fatal for the trial. So far as another condition is concerned, learned counsel submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedent which has been admitted by the prosecution in the counter affidavit, therefore, there is no possibility that he will indulge in any such activity in future if enlarged on bail. 5. He submits that present applicant is languishing in jail since 02.12.2025 and since he fulfils twin conditions of section 37 of the NDPS Act. In addition to this, he submits that the other co-accused has also been enlarged on bail, therefore, he deserves for bail. 6. On the other side, learned A.G.A. submits that non-compliance of section 52A is not fatal and the same is the subject matter of trial and since the contraband, which is recovered from the present applicant, is commercial one, therefore, due to the rider of section 37 of NDPS Act the applicant does not deserve for bail, however, he has not disputed that the inventory so prepared was certified by the Magistrate only by putting ‘seen’. 7. Apart from this, he has not disputed about the fact that the applicant has no any criminal antecedent. 8. After hearing the argument of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the discussion as above since now the twin conditions as stipulated under section 37 is fulfilled and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 02.12.2025, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant ‘Suraj Kumar’ be released UKHC010076902026 2026:UHC:5349 on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: (i) After being released, the applicant shall join the trial court proceeding on each and every date without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (ii) The applicant shall not indulge in any such activity in future after being released on bail and if he is found to be indulged in any such activity, the prosecution is free to move an application for cancellation of bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 03.07.2026 PR