IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application No. 513 of 2025 Pankaj Singh Kuwar ………………… Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ……………Respondent With Bail Application No. 556 of 2025 Manish Singh Rana ………………… Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ……………Respondent Present:

Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Kamlesh Budhlakoti, learned counsel for the applicants.

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

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Both the applications are being decided together since both the applicants are involved in relation to First Information Report dated 04.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 0040 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 8/20 read with Section 29 and 60 of NDPS Act, P.S. Joshimath, District Chamoli.

2. Both the bail applications were heard on different occasions at length and both the parties advance their submission particularly in reference to Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, which contemplates certain procedures to be followed while preparing an inventory and it’s certification by the Magistrate concerned.

3. Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the procedure as contemplated under Section 52-A of the Act are mandatory on conjoint reading with Rule 3, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the Rules namely “Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Search, Seizure, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, which were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 76 read with Section 52-A of the Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985).

4. On plain reading of Section 52-A of the Act and the Rules under Chapter 4 of 2022 Rules i.e. Rule 16, 17 and 18 it reveals that the procedure has to be followed strictly since sub-section (4) of Section 52-A clearly stipulates that the inventory, photographs of Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substances, Control Substances or Conveyance and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate are primary evidence in respect of such offence.

5. Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, argued that since in view of sub-section (4) of Section 52-A the evidence as collected during search and seizure including the samples and the inventory and the certification by the Magistrate are the primary piece of evidence, therefore, the procedure as required to be adopted in collecting these evidences cannot be termed as directory rather it has to be termed as mandatory. On the other side, learned counsel for the State vehemently oppose such submissions by submitting that in view of recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court i.e. in the case of Bharat Aambale vs. State State of Chhattisgarh i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 14420 of 2024, 2025 INSC 78 the procedure as stipulated under Section 52-A is nothing but is primarily for the disposal and destruction of the seized contraband in a safe manner.

6. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned A.G.A. also placed another recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Vaisakh’ arising out of SLP (Crl) 8556 of 2024 decided on

19.03.2024, wherein, this court observed as under:

“Though we are not inclined to interfere with the conclusions drawn for the grant of bail, we wish to clarify that the question of applicability of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and Rule 3 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, as interpreted in the impugned judgment by relying upon some of the decisions of this court, is incorrect. The law has been appropriately explained and elucidated in the later decisions of this court in “Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif’ and ‘Bharat Aambale vs. State of Chhasttisgarh’.

The ratio in the said decisions is binding.”

7. By referring the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned A.G.A. submits that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of