High Court · 2025

H o n ’ b l e Ra k e sh Th a p l i y a l , J. 1. Mr. Neeraj Singh Kaira, learned counsel for t he applicant . 2. Mr. Pankaj Governm ent Advocat e for t he St at e. 3. Present applicant Lalit Prasad, son of lat e Rat an Ram , is praying for regular bail in relat ion t o FI R dat ed 03.01.2025 bearing FI R No. 06 of 2025, Police St at ion – Kichha, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar wherein applicant has been t he offence punishable under im plicat ed Sect ion 8 / 20 of t he NDPS Act . 4. Learned counsel for t he applicant subm it s t hat applicant is innocent and has been falsely im plicat ed and t hough t he alleged cont raband, t he applicant is of com m ercial quant it y but t he procedure, as laid down under Sect ion 52A NDPS Act read wit h Rule 8 of t he Narcot ic Drugs and Psychot ropic Subst ances ( Seizure, St orage and Sam pling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, has not been com plied wit h, which, in fact , is m andat ory. 5. t hat t his, invent ory, which has been placed on record, by t he respondent by way of supplem ent ary affidavit is not in t he prescribed Form 4 under Rule 8. He furt her subm it s t hat as per Rule 8 of t he m at erial t he 2022 Rules, aft er seizure, should be forwarded t o t he Officer I n- charge of t he nearest police st at ion or t he officer em powered under Sect ion 53 of t he Act for t he purposes of preparat ion of invent ory of such m at erial in Form 4 and t hen apply t o t he Magist rat e, at t he earliest , under sub- sect ion ( 2) of Sect ion 52A for cert ificat ion. He by giving reference of t he seizure m em o furt her subm it s t hat invent ory was prepared at t he t im e of search and seizure, t hough aft er search and seizure, t he m at erial should be forwarded t o t he Officer I ncharge of t he nearest police st at ion for t he purposes of preparat ion of invent or y of such m at erial in Form 4. He furt her subm it s t hat invent ory at preparat ion of t he spot subm it s Apart t o On Aft er hearing learned counsel apparent ly against t he m andat e of Rule 8 of Rules, 2022. He furt her subm it s t hat applicant has no previous crim inal hist ory and languishing in j ail since 02.01.2025. He furt her subm it s t hat in t he invent ory, t here is r eference of FI R No., which is highly im probable because as per search and seizure m em o, invent ory was prepared on t he spot . 6. t he ot her side, Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Assist ant Governm ent Advocat e for t he St at e has not disput ed t his fact t hat in fact , under Rule 8, invent ory should not be prepared at t he t im e of search and seizure, what ever t he m at erial has been collect ed dur ing sear ch, t hat should be forwarded t o t he Officer I ncharge of t he nearest police st at ion for t he pur poses of preparat ion of invent ory but he subm it s t hat it lapse, which will not m ay be a procedural vit iat e eit her t he charge sheet or t rial, and is t he subj ect m at t er of t he t rial. 7. t he part ies, and furt her t aking int o considerat ion t he fact t hat on com paring t he search and seizure m em o wit h t he invent ory report t hat creat es so m any doubt s. Preparat ion of t he invent ory report on t he spot t hough m ay be a procedural lapse but t he benefit of procedural lapse on t he part of t he prosecut ion while preparing t he invent ory on t he spot should go t o t he purpose of considering t he bail applicat ion and not for ot her purposes because ult im at ely what ever be t he procedural lapse t hat will be subj ect m at t er of t he t rial. 8. Since, alleged cont raband which is shown t o be com m ercial one, t herefore, before considering t he bail applicat ion t win condit ion as st ipulat ed under Sect ion 37 of t he NDPS has t o be dealt wit h. This Court applicat ions, i.e., BA1 No. 513 of 2025 and BA1 No. 556 of 2025 decided on 22.05.2025 considered all t he precedent of t he Hon’ble Apex Court and com es t o t he conclusion t hat procedural lapse part icular ly in reference t o Sect ion 52( A) of t he NDPS Act will not vit iat e t he t rial but ot her fact ors can be t aken int o considerat ion for grant of bail. 9. t he procedure, as Non com pliance of prescribed under Sect ion 52A of t he NDPS Act is cert ainly t he subj ect m at t er of t he t rial but t he accused only t he applicant recovered recent ly t wo prim arily in view of t he subm ission as advanced by t he counsel for t he applicant t hat t here is no subst ant ial com pliance of Sect ion 52A of t he Act , t his Court is of t he view t hat t here are reasonable ground available w hich reveals t hat t he applicant prim arily not guilt y of t he offence as alleged. This is one of t he condit ion, as st ipulat ed under Sect ion 37 of t he NDPS Act . 10. The ot her condit ion as st ipulat ed under Sect ion 37 of t he NDPS Act is whet her t here is any possibilit y t o com m it any offence if t he applicant is enlarged on bail. I n t his regard since t he applicant has no previous crim inal hist ory and if he is adm it t ed t o bail, t his Court is prim arily of t he view t hat t he applicant is not likely t o com m it any offence while on bail. 11. Accordingly, wit hout expressing opinion on t he m erit of t he case, t he bail applicat ion is allowed. 12. Let t he applicant ‘Lalit Prasad’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and t wo t he suret ies each of sat isfact ion of t he court concerned. like am ount t he t o ( Ra k e sh Th a p l i y a l , J.)

18.06.2025. Parul