High Court · 2025

1. Mr. Saurabh Kum ar Pandey and Ms. Sheet al Selwal and Mr. Sandeep Adikari ( Legal Aid) ( HCLSA) learned counsel for t he applicant . 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocat e General wit h Mr. Him anshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for t he St at e. Present applicant Moham m ed Rafi, 3. S/ o Moham m ed Shakil is praying for bail in relat ion t o FI R dat ed 16.03.2025, bearing FI R No. 0082 of 2025, regist ered at P.S. Kiccha, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar, wherein t he present applicant has offences punishable under Sect ion 8/ 22 of Narcot ic Psychot ropic Subst ances Act , 1985. 4. Learned counsel for t he applicant argued t hat t he applicant is innocent and has been falsely im plicat ed in t he present case and is languishing in j ail since 16.03.2025. He furt her subm it s t hat t he alleged prohibit ed drugs, which is a com m ercial quant it y, t herefore, in such an event ualit y Sect ion 37 of t he N.D.P.S. Act will be applicable. I n reference t o Sect ion 37 of N.D.P.S. Act , he subm it s t hat first ly t he invent ory has not been properly cert ified since t he concerned Magist rat e put an endorsem ent of ‘seen’ in t he invent ory report . He subm it s t hat t he m anner in which t he Judicial Magist rat e cert ified t he invent ory is not in t erm s of Sect ion 52A of t he NDPS Act . He also subm it s t hat t he invent ory was also not prepared in t he prescribed Form - 4 under recovered, t o be t hat t hat t his, in such act ivit ies Rule 8 of NDPS Rules 2022 and as such, t here is no proper subst ant ial com pliance of Sect ion 52A of t he NDPS Act . Learned counsel for t he applicant also subm it s t hat t hough non com pliance of Sect ion 52A of t he NDPS Act is not fat al and will not vit iat e t he t rial, but t his aspect can be looked int o while considering t he bail applicat ion. Apart t he applicant has no subm it t ed previous crim inal hist ory and as such if t he applicant is enlarged on bail, t hen t here is no such possibilit y t hat he will indulge fut ure. Learned counsel concluded his argum ent by subm it t ing t hat t he t win condit ion as t he st ipulat ed under Sect ion 52A of NDPS Act are now fully com plied wit h t herefore, t he applicant deserves for bail. 5. On t he ot her side, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocat e General for t he St at e subm it s is proper subst ant ial com pliance of Sect ion 52A of t he NDPS Act and whet her it was properly cert ified by t he Magist rat e or not t his is t he subj ect m at t er for t rial, however, he has not disput ed t hat invent ory was cert ified by put t ing endorsem ent of “ seen” in t he invent ory. Apart from t his, Mr. Sandhu subm it s t hat t he applicant has no previous crim inal hist ory. 6. Aft er hearing t he argum ent s of t he learned counsel for t he part ies and furt her t aking int o considerat ion t hat t here is no proper subst ant ial com pliance of Sect ion 52A of t he NDPS Act , and, in view of t he observat ions as m ade above, t his Court is prim arily of t he view t hat t he applicant is t he offence as alleged. not guilt y of t he Furt herm or e, previous crim inal hist ory, such an event ualit y bailed out t here is less possibilit y t hat in fut ur e he will in any such indulge act ivit ies, t hus, since t he t win condit ions t herefore, t he applicant applicant t here t he as st ipulat ed under Sect ion 37 of NDPS Act are com plied wit h in view of t he discussion as m ade above, t his Cour t is of t he view t hat t he applicant deser ves for bail. 7. Accordingly, wit hout expressing any opinion on t he m erit of t he case, t he bail applicat ion is allowed. 8. Let t he applicant “ Moham m ed Rafi” be released on bail on his execut ing a personal bond and furnishing t wo reliable suret ies of t he t o sat isfact ion of t he court concerned. I t is furt her m ade clear t hat t he t rial 9. court proceed wit h t he t rial independent ly wit hout t he observat ion as m ade above. influenced wit h like am ount t he Nahid Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

28.11.2025