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. 938 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Shubhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State.

3. Present applicant–Monu Chopra S/o Nakli Ram Chopra S/o Shri Nakli Ram Chopra, is seeking bail in relation to first information report dated 15.10.2023 bearing FIR No.0650 of 2023, Police Station Kotwali, Roorkee, District Haridwar, wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/22 read with Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the alleged prohibited drugs/injections, which were shown to be recovered from the present applicant is commercial one and, there is no proper substantial compliance of Section 50, 52-

A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act.

5. Learned counsel further argued that the inventory was prepared at the spot, but it is not certified by the Magistrate. He submits that certainly Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into his way since the alleged prohibited drugs, which are shown to be recovered, is commercial one, and in reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he submits that the applicant was arrested on 16.10.2023, and since then he is in jail and as such he suffered long incarceration of about one year and nine months.

6. He also submits that the charge- sheet was already filed and the charges were framed, however, as per his information, up till date, out of total eight prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined.

7. He submits that since the applicant has already suffered a long incarceration of about one year and nine months, and, furthermore, there is no certification of the inventory, therefore, there are reasonable grounds that the applicant is not involved in the offence as alleged and as such, one of the condition, as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, is complied with.

8. Apart from this, it is submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history, which has not been disputed by the State counsel.

9. Finally, Mr. Shubhash Tyagi Bhardwaj concluded his arguments by submitting that since the twin conditions, as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are complied with, therefore, the applicant deserves for bail.

10. On the other side, Mr. V.S. Pal, learned State Counsel have not disputed this fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.10.2023, and already suffered long incarceration and have also not disputed the fact that there is no certification of the inventory, and, furthermore, he also inform to this Court that that the charges were framed in the Month of April, 2024 but up till date, out of eight witnesses only one witness has