High Court · 2025

H o n ' b l e Ra k esh Th a p l i y al , J. 1. Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for t he applicant . 2. Ms. Siddhart h Bisht , learned A.G.A, and Mr. Him anshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for t he St at e. Present applicant Nar Singh, S/ o 3. Diwan Singh is praying for r egular bail in relat ion 03.01.2025, regist ered as FI R No. 03 of 2025, at P.S. Haldwani Dist rict Nainit al wher ein t he present applicant has been im plicat ed for t he offences punishable under Sect ion 8/ 20/ 60 of t he NDPS Act . 4. t he applicant subm it s t hat t he applicant is innocent and t he has been alleged cont raband, show n t he t o a possession com m ercial quant it y, and, as such, Sect ion 37 of t he NDPS Act will com e int o his way. I n reference t o Sect ion 37 of t he NDPS Act , t he applicant subm it s t hat t here is no proper subst ant ial com pliance of Sect ion 52A of t he NDPS Act , since, aft er preparat ion of t he invent ory no separat e applicat ion has been m oved cert ificat ion and, furt herm or e, in t he invent ory report t here is an endorsem ent of t he Magist rat e ‘seen’ which it self reveals t hat t here is no proper applicat ion of m ind w hile cert ifying t he invent ory. Apart from t his, learned counsel for 5. t he applicant subm it s t hat applicant has no previous crim inal hist ory and if t he applicant is bailed out t hen t her e is less possibilit y t hat t he applicant will indulge in fut ur e. Learned any such act ivit ies t he Magist rat e invent ory, learned counsel applicant before t hat t her e t he applicant advanced his counsel argum ent s by referring Sect ion 52A of t he NDPS Act is no proper subst ant ial com pliance, t herefor e, one of t he condit ion, as st ipulat ed, under Sect ion 37 of t he Act is fulfilled and so far as ot her condit ion is concerned, since, applicant has no previous cr im inal hist ory, t herefore, t his aspect m ay be consider ed for grant ing bail t o t he applicant . 6. Mr. Bisht , lear ned A.G.A. seriously opposed t he bail applicat ion by subm it t ing t hat since t he alleged cont raband w hich is show n t o be r ecovered from t he present t herefore, applicant is com m er cial one, non com pliance of Sect ion 52A of t he NDPS Act is not fat al and will not vit iat e t rial, t herefor e, on t his ground alone t he applicant does not deserve for bail. So far is concerned, as crim inal ant ecedent learned AGA has not disput ed on t his. 7. Aft er hearing t he learned counsel for t he part ies and t aking int o considerat ion t he m andat ory pr ovisions of Sect ion 52 A t he recent pronouncem ent of t he Hon’ble Apex Court t hat non com pliance of Sect ion 52A is not fat al and will not vit iat e t rial but t his aspect can be t o exam ine looked whet her t her e are reasonable ground t hat t he applicant is not guilt y of t he offence as alleged. On plain reading of Sect ion 52A read wit h Rule 8 under Chapt er I I I of ( Search Seizur e sam pling and NDPS disposal) Rules 2022, prim a t he procedure has t o be followed since by virt ue of Sect ion 52A( 4) of t he NDPS Act what ever be evidences ar e collect ed sam e are t r eat ed t o be prim ar y evidences. On per usal of t he invent ory report it reveals t hat t here is only refer ence of ‘seen’ by it self t he concer ned Magist rat e which reveals t hat no applicat ion was m oved for seeking cert ificat ion, and, as such, t he Magist rat e concer ned has not applied his m ind properly, however, as held by t he Hon’ble Apex Cour t t hese aspect s ar e fat al t he Act and in view of int o considerat ion t hat cert ified by for vit iat ing t he t rial but can be looked int o for considering t he bail applicat ion. 8. I n view of t he above discussion, and t aking int o t he t he invent ory was not Magist rat e concer ned, t his Court is of t he view t hat t here ar e r easonable ground t hat t he applicant is not prim a facie appears t o guilt y of t he offence, as alleged, and furt herm or e since t he applicant has no in such an previous crim inal hist ory, event ualit y if t he applicant is enlar ged on bail t hen t her e is less possibilit y t hat t he applicant will indulge in fut ure in any such act ivit ies. 9. I n view of t he above discussion since t win condit ion as st ipulat ed under Sect ion 37 of t he Act ar e fulfilled and as such applicant deserves for bail. 10. Accordingly, wit hout ex pressing any opinion on t he m erit of t he case, t he bail applicat ion is allowed. t he applicant “ Nar Singh” be 11. Let released on bail on his execut ing a per sonal bond and fur nishing t wo reliable sur et ies of t he sat isfact ion of t he court concerned. 12. I t is m ade clear t hat aft er being released on bail t he applicant shall j oin t he proceeding of t he t rial court on each and ever y dat e and w ill not seek unnecessary adj our nm ent failing w hich t he t rial court is direct ed t o proceed against t he applicant including cancellat ion of bail in accordance wit h law and proceed wit h t he t rial wit hout being influenced wit h t he observat ions as m ade above. like am ount t he t o ( Ra k e sh Th a p l i y a l , J.) 2 5 .0 6 .2 0 2 5 Parul