Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/616/2025 on 26 June, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
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. 616 of 2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Mukul Singh Dangi, learned
counsel for the applicant (through Legal
Aid).
2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Present applicant- Vivek Kumar is
praying for regular bail in relation to FIR
dated 08.11.2024, bearing FIR No. 0023
of 2024, registered at P.S. Narendra
Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal wherein both
the applicant has been implicated for the
offences punishable under Sections
8/20/29/60 of the NDPS Act.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant
argued that the recovery of alleged
contraband 'charas' shown to be recovered
from five persons, namely, Vikas Dhiman
(present applicant), Pankaj Dhiman
(present applicant), Boby Kumar, Bablesh
and Vivek Kumar and it was a joint
recovery. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated
which is evident from the fact that the
alleged contraband recovered to be shown
is a joint recovery from five persons and
submits that there is no substantial
compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS
Act, since, the inventory was not prepared
in the form as prescribed under Rule 8 of
NDPS (Search Seizure sampling and
disposal) Rules 2022, and furthermore in
the inventory report there is a reference of
FIR no. also which itself reveals that at the
time of search and seizure the inventory
was not prepared. In addition to this he
further submits that not only this even the
inventory was not properly certified by the
concerned Magistrate, since, endorsement
of seen has been put by the learned
Magistrate in the inventory report.
5. A detailed counter affidavit has also
been filed. Further, inventory report has
been placed before this Court by Mr. Sain,
learned Brief Holder. This Court also
perused the same. On perusal of the same
it reveals that in the inventory there is a
FIR number as well as endorsement of
concerned Magistrate by putting 'seen'.
6. On perusal of Rule 8 it reveals that
there should be a proper certification by
the Magistrate concerned for which the
I.O. has to move an application along with
the inventory report but in this case no
such application has been moved. In
reference to this, learned counsel for the
applicant placed reliance in one of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Bharat Amble vs. State of
Chattisgarh (2025) SCC Online SC 110
which was also followed by this Court.
7. Apart from this, learned counsel for
the applicant submits that the applicant
has no previous criminal history. He
submits that since the applicant has no
previous criminal history and if he is bailed
out there is less possibility that he will
indulge in any such activities in future.
8. On the other side, Mr. Sain, learned
Brief Holder for the State has not disputed
this fact that there is no proper
certification of the inventory except the
endorsement made by the Magistrate
concerned. Apart from this, he has not
disputed about the criminal antecedent of
the applicant and submits that the
applicant has no previous criminal history.
9. After hearing the arguments of the
learned counsel for the parties and further
taking into consideration that there is no
proper substantial compliance of Section
52A of the NDPS Act, and, in view of the
observations as made above, this Court is
primarily of the view that the applicant is
not guilty of the offence as alleged.
Furthermore, the applicant has no
previous criminal history, therefore, in
such an eventuality if the applicant is
bailed out there is less possibility that in
future he will indulge in any such
activities, thus, since the twin conditions
as stipulated under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are complied with in view of the
discussion as made above, therefore, this
Court is of the view that the applicant
deserves for bail.
10. Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the merit of the case, the bail
application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant Vivek Kumar be
released on bail on his executing personal
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
released on bail the applicant shall join the
proceeding of the trial court on each and
every date and will not seek unnecessary
adjournment failing which the trial court is
directed to proceed against the applicant
including cancellation of bail in accordance
with law and proceed with the trial without
being influenced with the observations as
made above.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
26.06.2025
Parul
