Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures BA1 No. 293 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present applicant ‘Naresh Kumar’ S/o Late Kunwar Ram is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 22.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 382 of 2024 P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital, wherein, the present applicant and his wife Kavita both were implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and he is languishing in jail since 23.12.2024 and the chargesheet has already been filed. He further argued that the alleged contraband ganja, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant, is a commercial one and shown to be recovered from the house of the applicant. He submits that before search it is mandatory upon the prosecution to comply Section 42 of the NDPS Act, but the same has not been complied with. He further argued that the inventory was prepared but there is no proper certification by the Magistrate concerned since the Magistrate concerned put an endorsement of ‘seen’ in the endorsement, which itself reveals that the Magistrate concerned while certifying the inventory has not applied his mind, which itself reveals that there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

5. He further submits that the wife of the applicant is already enlarged on bail by this court. He further argued that the applicant have a criminal history of one case relating to NDPS Act and he is an accused only for the offence punishable under Section 29 in which he is already bailed out. He further submits that since the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2024 and as such already suffered long incarceration and since now the chargesheet has been filed, therefore, the applicant be enlarged on bail.

6. Finally, Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey concluded his argument by submitting that since there is no substantial compliance of Section 52 of the NDPS Act and in the previous case the applicant is already bailed out and in the present case the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2024, therefore, the twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is fulfilled and as such the applicant deserves for bail.

7. On the other side, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. oppose the bail application by submitting that in terms of Section 37 of NDPS Act since the alleged contraband is commercial one, therefore, the applicant does not deserve for bail, however, he has not disputed this fact that the inventory was certified by the Magistrate concerned by putting endorsement of ‘seen’, but non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is not fatal and it will not vitiate the trial, however, he fairly submits that this aspect can be looked into while considering the bail application.

8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the chargesheet has already been filed and the applicant is in long incarceration since he is languishing in jail since 23.12.2024 and further the inventory so prepared is certified by the Magistrate by putting ‘seen’ in the inventory, which itself reveals that there is no substantial compliance of Section 52 of the NDPS Act though it will not vitiate the trial but this aspect can be looked into while considering the bail application, therefore, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail, since twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of NDPS Act is now complied with.

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

10. Let the applicant ‘Naresh Kumar’ be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond