High Court · 2025

1. Mr. Rohit Gaur, learned counsel for t he applicant . 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Addl. Advocat e General wit h Mr. Deepk Bhardwaj , learned Brief Holder for t he St at e. 3. Pr esent applicant – I rshan, S/ o I rfan, is seeking bail in relat ion t o first infor m at ion report dat ed 14.01.2025 bearing FI R/ Case Crim e No. 0002 of 2025, Police St at ion Dhum akot , Dist rict Pauri Gar hwal, w her ein t he present applicant along wit h one Prince Kum ar Dagar and Shehj ad have offences punishable under Sect ion 8/ 20 read wit h Sect ion 60 of t he N.D.P.S. Act , 1985. t he applicant 4. Learned counsel subm it s t hat innocent and has been falsely im plicat ed. He furt her subm it s t hat t hr ee persons ar e nam ed in t he FI R including applicant and t he recovery of 79.200 kg of Ganj a is show n from t heir j oint recovery, however, t her e is no subst ant ial com pliance of Sect ion 52-A of t he NDPS Act . t he alleged 5. He ar gued cont raband is com m ercial one, t herefor e, Sect ion 37 of t he NDPS Act will com e int o his way. 6. Learned counsel t he applicant subm it s t hat in t his part icular case t hough t he invent ory was prepared but t he sam e was handwrit t en and not in t he prescribed form at of Form - 4 as pr escribed under Rule 8 of t he Narcot ics Drugs and Psychot ropic Subst ances ( Seizure, St orage, Sam pling and Disposal) , Rules, and, furt herm or e, proper cert ificat ion by t he Magist rat e concerned, since t her e is an endorsem ent of seen on t he first page of t he invent ory by t he 2022, t hat since t here t rial, but cases wit h t he looked concer ned Magist rat e. 7. Apart from t his, he subm it s t hat m er ely by m aking an endorsem ent of “ seen” in t he invent ory, t hat t oo, in t he fir st page clearly r eveals t hat first ly, t he concer ned I nvest igat ing Officer has not m oved separat e applicat ion along wit h invent ory for it ’s cert ificat ion, and, furt her m ore, t he concer ned Magist rat e has not applied his j udicial m ind w hile cert ifying t he invent ory. 8. He also subm it s t hat non- com pliance of Sect ion52A of t he NDPS t hough is not fat al and will not vit iat e t his int o while aspect considering t he bail. He furt her subm it s t hat t he applicant has crim inal hist ory of t hree sim ilar nat ure of allegat ion in which he is already bailed 9. He furt her subm it s t hat obj ect ions have already been filed by t he prosecut ion in t he pr esent case and if t he applicant is bailed out t hen t here is no such possibilit y t hat t he applicant will m isuse t he bail and will repeat t he crim e. 10. Learned counsel t he applicant furt her subm it s t hat t he invest igat ion has t he already t he char gesheet has been present applicant j ail since 14.01.2025 and at t his j unct ur e, t her e is no need of cust odial int err ogat ion of t he pr esent applicant and be enlarged on bail. 11. He furt her subm it s t hat co- accused Prince Kum ar Dagar and Shehj ad have t his already been enlarged on bail by Court and applicant has ident ical r ole as t hat of co accused, since t his is a case of j oint recovery. 12. On t he ot her side, Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocat e General t he St at e t he applicant does not t hat subm it s deserve for bail in view of Sect ion 37 of t he NDPS Act , however, he has not disput ed t his fact t hat t he invent ory was cert ified by t he Magist rat e concer ned by put t ing “ seen” in t he fir st page of t he filed and languishing com plet ed t he t he furt her Subst ances t aking t he learned counsel crim inal invent ory. So ant ecedent of t he applicant is concerned, he also subm it s t hat t he applicant has crim inal hist ory of t hree cases of sim ilar nat ur e of allegat ion. 13. Though non- com pliance of Sect ion 52- A of t he NDPS Act will not vit iat e t he t rial but t his aspect can be looked int o only for lim it ed pur poses for considering t he bail applicat ion. t he ar gum ent s as 14. Aft er hearing t he advanced by int o part ies invent ory considerat ion par t icularly and it s cert ificat ion, t his Court is of t he view t hat in view of t he discussion as t win condit ions, as m ade above st ipulat ed under Sect ion 37, ar e fulfilled, since t he invent ory was not pr epared in t he pr escribed For m - 4 as pr escribed under t he Narcot ics Dr ugs and Rule 8 of Psychot ropic ( Seizur e, St orage, Sam pling and Disposal) , Rules, 2022, and, furt her m ore, t her e is no proper cert ificat ion, t he reasonable grounds t hat t he applicant is not involved in t he alleged offence, and, furt herm or e, if t he applicant is bailed out , t her e is no such possibilit y t hat he will repeat t he sim ilar nat ur e of offence while on bail, how ever, for t hat pur poses som e st ringent condit ions can be im posed. Thus, in view of t he discussion as above since t win st ipulat ed under Sect ion 37 of t he NDPS Act , are com plied wit h, t her efor e, t his Court is of t he view t hat t he applicant deserves for bail. 15. Accordingly, wit hout expr essing any opinion on t he m erit of t he case, t he present bail applicat ion is allowed. 16. Let t he applicant , nam ely, “ I rshan” be released on bail, on his execut ing a per sonal bond and fur nishing t wo reliable sur et ies, each in t he like am ount , t o t he sat isfact ion of t he court concerned. t hat aft er being 17. released on bail, t he pr esent applicant condit ions, as is m ade clear t here ar e t her efore, I t t o r eport t he concer ned nearest police st at ion on t he first day of every m ont h and t he concerned SHO shall record his pr esence, failing w hich, t he concer ned SHO is dir ect ed t o m ove an applicat ion eit her befor e t his Court or befor e t he t rial Court for cancellat ion of bail. I t is furt her m ade clear t hat t rial Court m ay pr oceed wit h t he t rial wit hout being influenced wit h t he observat ions and discussions as m ade above. ( Ra k e sh Th a p l i y a l , J.) 1 8 .1 1 .2 0 2 5 Parul