AT NAINITAL v. State of Uttarakhand

in relation to First Information Report dated 06.10.2024 bearing FIR No. 506 of 2024 P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 8/22 r/w Section 60 of NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated since the inventory of recovered prohibited drugs/injections was not prepared strictly in the prescribed Form-4 under Rule 8 of NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules of 2022 and furthermore there is no proper certification since the Magistrate put endorsement of seen in the said inventory for the purposes of certification which clearly reveals that no separate application was moved by the concerned officer along with the inventory for the purposes of certification, therefore, there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 1 3. Apart from this, it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that during search and seizure the applicant admits that he consumes the injections and in such an eventuality the applicant should be treated to be an accused for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the NDPS Act but while submitting the chargesheet the applicant is not made an accused for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. He submits that for implicating the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the NDPS Act particularly when he admits that he consumes for himself immediately after arrest of the applicant he should be examined by the Medical Officer to ascertain whether he actually consumes the drugs or not. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey submits that this aspect is completely lacking since after arrest of the applicant the applicant was not examined by the Medical Officer.

4. On the previous date, in reference to this, Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey advanced his arguments and submits that there are the statutory medical examination particularly in reference to the NDPS Act, which has not been carried out like Urine Drug Test, Blood Test, Saliva Oral Test and Hair Follicle Test. To examine this aspect learned State counsel was directed to get instructions and on instructions he submits that no such medical examination was done after arrest of the applicant. Thus, it reveals that once the applicant admits that he consumes injections for himself then in such an eventuality, the procedure as prescribed under Section 27 of NDPS Act has to be followed but this is completely lacking in this case.

5. Apart from this, Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey also submits that the applicant have no previous criminal history and the 2 chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant and he is languishing in jail since 06.10.2024 and if the applicant is bailed out then there is less possibility that he will repeat the same offence future. Finally concluded his arguments by submitting that non-compliance of statutory provision of Section 52A of NDPS Act though will not vitiate the trial but non compliance thereof can be taken into consideration while considering the bail application. He submits that since there is no substantial compliance of Section 52A and furthermore the applicant have no previous criminal history therefore the twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are fulfilled and as such, the applicant deserves for bail.

6. On the other side learned State counsel seriously oppose the bail application by submitting that in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act the applicant does not deserve for bail; however, for non-compliance of Section 52A he submits that in this case the inventory was prepared and it was certified by the Magistrate concerned by putting seen, which itself reveals Section 52A was fully complied with. In reference to Section 27 of the NDPS Act learned State counsel submits that since at the time of arrest of the applicant the applicant have not consumed the injections which were recovered from the applicant and that is the reason that after arrest the applicant was not medically examined.

7. Be that as it may, certainly non-compliance of Section 52A of the Act will not vitiate the trial but its non-compliance may be deciding factor for deciding the bail application. On perusal of the inventory it reveals that though the inventory is not prepared strictly in Form – 4 and furthermore the same was not 3 certified by the Magistrate with due application of mind since there was only an endorsement of seen, therefore, this court is of the view that there are the reasonable grounds that the applicant is not found guilty for the offence as alleged. So far as other aspects are concerned since the applicant has no previous criminal history, therefore, this court is of the view that if the applicant is enlarged on bail then there is less possibility that he will repeat the same offence in future, therefore this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.

8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant ‘Tasleem’ be enlarged on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

10. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall join the proceeding of trial in each and every date without seeking any unnecessary adjournment and the trial court will proceed with the trial without being influenced with the observations as made above. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

30.06.2025 PR 4