Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/239/2025 on 24 June, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2025:UHC:5328
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1 No. 239 of 2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned AGA
along with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
3. Present applicant-Sahwan S/o Shri
Dilshad, is seeking bail in relation to first
information report dated 28.12.2024
bearing FIR No.0702 of 2024, Police Station
Pathri, District Haridwar, wherein the
present applicant has been implicated for
the offences punishable under Section
8/22/29 and 27(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act,
1985.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the present applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated
and the alleged recovered prohibited drugs
though are commercial one, but there is
no substantial compliance of mandatory
provision of the NDPS Act.
5. Apart from this, he submits that
since the alleged prohibited drug, which
was shown to be recovered from the
present applicant, is commercial one,
therefore, in such an eventuality, Section
37 of the NDPS will come into his way and
in reference to this, he submits that in
this case, though the inventory was
prepared after the search and seizure but
the inventory was not certified by the
Magistrate concerned, which, in fact, is
the mandatory requirement as per Section
52A of the NDPS Act. Apart from this, he
2025:UHC:5328
submits that even the procedure as laid
down in terms of Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances (Seizure,
Storage, Sampling and Disposal), Rules,
2022 has not been followed, and,
furthermore, the inventory has not been
prepared in prescribed Form-4.
So far as the criminal antecedents
are concerned, Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant makes statement
at Bar that the applicant has no previous
criminal history.
6. He further submits that since there
is no substantial compliance of Section
52-A of the NDPS Act, and, furthermore,
the inventory is not prepared in the
prescribed Form-4 and is not certified by
the Magistrate concerned and all the
evidences collected under Section 52-A are
the primary evidences in terms of Section
52(4) of NDPS Act, therefore, one of the
conditions as stipulated under Section 37
is fulfilled, since non compliance of the
procedure and non-certification of the
inventory, so prepared, clearly reveals that
there are the reasonable grounds to show
that the applicant is not guilty of the
alleged offence. He also submits that since
the present applicant has no criminal
antecedent, therefore, if the applicant is
bailed out, there are no such possibility
that he will repeat the crime.
7. He further submits that since both
the conditions, as stipulated under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are fulfilled,
and, therefore, the applicant deserves for
bail.
8. On the other side, Mr. Siddhartha
Bisht, learned AGA, argued that non-
2025:UHC:5328
compliance of the procedure as laid down
under Section 52-A and the Rules, will not
vitiate the trial and the same is only the
subject matter of the trial, therefore, in
view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the
applicant does not deserve for bail.
He also submits that the charge-
sheet has already been filed and as such
there is no need of custodial interrogation
of the present applicant.
9. After hearing the arguments as
advanced by learned counsel for the
parties particularly in reference to the
compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS
Act, no doubt non compliance of Section
52-A will not vitiate the trial and the same
is subject matter of the trial, but this
aspect can be looked into for examine as
to whether primarily the applicant is guilty
for the offence or not for considering the
bail application.
10. So far as the other condition as
stipulated under Section 37 is concerned
with regard to the criminal antecedents,
since the applicant has no previous
criminal history, therefore, if the applicant
is bailed out, there is less possibility that
he will repeat the crime while on bail,
however, for that purposes some stringent
conditions can be imposed.
Thus, in view of the observation as
made above particularly in reference to the
non-compliance of Section 52-A of the
NDPS Act and the Rules of 2022, this
Court is of the view that the applicant
deserves for bail.
11. Accordingly, without expressing
any opinion on the merit of the case, the
present bail application is allowed.
2025:UHC:5328
12. Let the applicant, namely, Sahwan,
be released on bail, on his executing a
personal bond and furnishing two
reliable sureties, each in the like amount,
to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
13. It is made clear that after being
released on bail, if the applicant is found
to be indulged in any such activity and
will not appear before the trial Court, then
the trial Court is directed to take
immediate steps for cancelling of bail.
14. It is also made clear that the trial
Court will not be influenced with the
observation as made above and conclude
the trial on its own merit.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
24.06.2025
R.Bisht
2025:UHC:5328