Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

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

and Registrar’s order with Signatures BA1/ 205/ 2025 BA1/ 206/ 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. M. K. Ray and Ms. Unnati Pant, learned counsel for the applicants.

2. Mr. G. S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder the State.

3. These two bail applications have been moved by “Shri Kundan Singh, son of Shri Bhajan Singh and Shri Harish Pant, son of Shri Kashiram Pant” praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 24.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 0490 of 2024, Police Station – Kashipur, District – Udham Singh Nagar, wherein both the applicants have been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/20 read with Section

60 of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated and the contraband “ganja”, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicants are above commercial quantity i.e. 58.872 kg, therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into his way. He further submits that there is no proper substantial compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and though the inventory was prepared as per mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act but there is no proper certification by the Magistrate since there is only an endorsement of “seen” by the concerned Magistrate, which itself reveals neither the Magistrate concerned without application of mind put an endorsement of “seen” in the inventory.

5. Apart from this, he submits that search and seizure was made on an information of informer but the information was not recorded in writing as per mandate of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He further submits that since there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 42 and 52A of the NDPS Act and applicants have no previous criminal history.

6. On the other side, Mr. G. S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that non compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is not fatal and will not vitiate the trial and also submits that applicants have no previous criminal history. Apart from this, he submits that since this is a case of chance recovery, therefore, there is no need for compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that since there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 52A and 42 of the NDPS Act and there is no proper certification by the Magistrate, and as such, there are reasonable grounds that the applicants are not involved in the offence as alleged, and furthermore, since both the applicants have no previous criminal history therefore, there is no such possibility that in future, they will indulge in such activity while on bail, thus, the twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of NDPS Act are now fulfilled and as such applicants deserves for bail.

8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the bail applications are allowed.

9. Let the applicant “Kundan Singh, son of Shri Bhajan Singh and Harish Pant, son of Shri Kashiram Pant” be released on bail on furnishing their personal bonds and two sureties by each of them, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

10. It is made clear that after being released on bail, the applicants shall attend trial on each and every date fixed before the trial court and will not take any unnecessary adjournment. If applicants fail to comply with the aforesaid condition, the trial court is free to cancel the bail. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial without being influence with the observations as above.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

12.08.2025.

SKS