Office Notes, SL. Date reports, No. orders or COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures BA1 No. 36 of 2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Present applicant Jeeshan, S/o Aarif is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 14.11.2024, registered as FIR No. 0045 of 2024 at P.S. Bhatrauj Khan District Almora wherein the present applicant along with other person, namely, Pankaj Singh has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 read with 60 of the NDPS Act.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is 25.825 kg i.e. Ganja which is a commercial one. He submits that there is no compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act since as per the FIR, the search was done on the basis of the information of Constable 42 Parvez Ahmad and Constable 471 Birendra Bisht but the information, as received, was not recorded in writing which is a mandatory requirement in terms of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Furthermore, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has no criminal history.

5. On the other side, learned A.G.A.

seriously opposed the bail application by submitting that since alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered from the applicant is commercial one, as such, the applicant does not deserve for bail in terms of Section 37. He further submits that procedural lapse i.e. non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not fatal and it will not vitiate the trial.

6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that admittedly there is no substantial compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, as the information which was received before search, from two constables was not recorded in writing, and this aspect cannot be ignored while dealing with the bail application, and, as such, this Court is primarily is of the view that there is reasonable ground that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence. So far as criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, there is no such case against the applicant of the similar nature, therefore, there is no likelihood to commit any offence while on bail.

10. In view of the observation as made above in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail since twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are fulfilled, and, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant Jeeshan be released on bail on his executing a person bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

12. It is made clear that after being