Introduction:
The Uttarakhand High Court, in Hashim v. State of Uttarakhand (Bail Application No. 820 of 2025), has held that a Magistrate’s mere endorsement of the word “seen” on the inventory of seized narcotic substances does not amount to substantial compliance with the certification requirements under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, read with Rule 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal observed that although the issue of compliance would ultimately be decided during trial, the apparent procedural deficiency could be considered while deciding a bail application.
The applicant was prosecuted under Sections 8 and 22 read with Section 60 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing a commercial quantity of narcotic substances. He had remained in judicial custody since 24 March 2024. Although the charge sheet had been filed on 31 August 2024 and the trial had commenced, none of the eight prosecution witnesses had been examined. The bail application raised an important issue regarding compliance with the mandatory safeguards governing certification of the inventory of seized contraband under Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
The principal question before the Court was whether the Magistrate’s simple endorsement of “seen” on the inventory could be treated as substantial compliance with the statutory certification process and whether such a deficiency, coupled with prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, justified the grant of bail.
Arguments of the Parties:
The applicant argued that the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and Rule 8 of the 2022 Rules had not been followed. It was submitted that the Magistrate had merely written “seen” on the inventory prepared during seizure without certifying its correctness in the manner required by law. According to the applicant, this omission cast doubt on compliance with the statutory safeguards governing seizure and preservation of narcotic substances.
The applicant further contended that he had been in custody for more than two years despite the filing of the charge sheet. Although eight prosecution witnesses had been cited, not a single witness had been examined, resulting in prolonged incarceration without meaningful progress in the trial. It was argued that these circumstances, together with the procedural deficiency relating to certification of the inventory, warranted the grant of bail.
The State opposed the bail application, contending that the applicant was accused of possessing a commercial quantity of narcotic substances, attracting the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. It maintained that questions relating to compliance with Section 52A and Rule 8 were matters to be decided during trial after appreciation of evidence and should not result in the grant of bail at the preliminary stage.
Court’s Judgment:
Allowing the bail application, the Uttarakhand High Court held that while the question of whether there had been complete compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act would ultimately be determined during trial, the apparent deficiency in certification could nevertheless be taken into consideration while deciding the request for bail.
The Court observed that Rule 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 contemplates certification of the correctness of the inventory by the Magistrate. A mere endorsement of the word “seen” does not prima facie satisfy this statutory requirement. Although the legal effect of such non-compliance is a matter for trial, it cannot be ignored altogether when assessing whether continued detention is justified.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal also attached significance to the fact that the applicant had remained in custody since 24 March 2024 and that despite filing of the charge sheet, the trial had made virtually no progress. None of the eight prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating that the conclusion of the trial was not likely in the near future.
The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or on the ultimate validity of the seizure proceedings. However, the combined circumstances of prolonged incarceration, lack of progress in the trial, and the apparent procedural deficiency regarding certification of the inventory constituted sufficient grounds to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond, leaving all issues regarding compliance with Section 52A and Rule 8 to be finally adjudicated during the course of the trial.