BA1/701/2025 on 14 July, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

BA1/701/2025 on 14 July, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

                                                                       2025:UHC:6064
              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. 701 of 2025
                               BA1 No. 1002 of 2025

                               Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kaparuwan, learned
counsel for the applicants.

2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. for the
State.

3. These two separate bail applications have
been moved by ‘Praveen Singh Rawat’ S/o Ram
Singh and ‘Ritik Negi’ S/o Roshan Singh Negi,
who are praying for bail in relation to First
Information Report dated 19.03.2025 bearing FIR
No. 01 of 2025 P.S. Revenue Circle Jhimar, District
Almora, wherein, both the applicants have been
implicated for the offences punishable under
Sections 8/20 r/w Section 60 of NDPS Act.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits
that both the applicants are innocent and have
been falsely implicated and the alleged
contraband as shown to be recovered from joint
possession, is commercial one i.e. 24.196 kg ganja,
therefore, Section 37 of NDPS Act will come into
their way.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the
applicants that there is no proper substantial
compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act since the
inventory which was prepared after search and
seizure was not prepared in the prescribed Form-4
of NDPS Rules, 2022 and furthermore there is no
proper compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act
since the vehicle from which the recovery is
shown is on the basis of the information of an
informer, which was not recorded in writing. He
further submits that there is no chemical analysis
report in order to make full compliance of Section
52A of NDPS Act. He submits that since the
mandatory provisions has not been complied
with, therefore, there are sufficient material which
reveals that the applicants are not involved in the
said offence.

6. Apart from this, he submits that both the
2025:UHC:6064
applicants have no previous criminal history and
if both the applicants are bailed out then there is
less possibility that after being released on bail
they will involve in similar activity. He further
submits that both the applicants are languishing in
jail since 19.03.2025 and the applicant-Praveen
Rawat was the driver of the vehicle and other
applicant Ritik Negi was the attendant and two
persons ran away from the spot.

7. On the other side, Mr. Siddhartha Bisht,
learned A.G.A. submits that inventory so
prepared after search and seizure was properly
certified by Magistrate and, therefore, it is wrong
to say that Section 52A has not been complied
with. He further submits that there is no need of
compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act since the
vehicle in question was commercial, however, he
admits this fact that the search was done on the
information of informer.

8. Apart from this, he has not disputed this fact
that both the applicants have no previous criminal
history.

9. After hearing the arguments of both the
parties and further taking into consideration with
regard to non compliance of Section 52A of NDPS
Act after perusing the inventory so prepared after
the search and seizure prima-facie it appears that
the inventory so prepared is not strictly as per the
prescribed Form-4 as prescribed under Rules 2022,
therefore, there are reasonable grounds that the
applicants are not involved in the alleged offence.
So far as other aspects are concerned both the
applicants have no previous criminal history and
if they are enlarged on bail then there is less
possibility that they will indulge in such criminal
activities in future. Thus, the twin conditions as
stipulated under Section 37 of NDPS Act are now
fulfilled and as such both the applicants deserve
for bail.

10. Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the merit of the case the bail
applications are allowed.

11. Let the applicants ‘Praveen Singh Rawat’
and ‘Ritik Negi’ be released on bail on furnishing
their personal bond and two sureties each of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
2025:UHC:6064
concerned.

12. It is made clear that after being released on
bail if both the applicants are found to be indulged
in any such criminal activities in future the
concerned court is free to take appropriate action
against both the applicants including cancellation
of bail.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
14.07.2025
PR