Prolonged incarceration, clean antecedents, and questionable Section 52A compliance justified bail despite commercial-quantity allegations.

The applicant, Sharukh Khan, was implicated in FIR No. 0191 of 2025 dated 22 May 2025, registered at P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, for an offence under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). The prosecution alleged recovery of a prohibited drug in commercial quantity.

The applicant had been charge-sheeted, had no previous criminal antecedents, and remained in custody from 22 May 2025. At the time of the bail hearing, only one prosecution witness had been examined. The applicant challenged the compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, contending that although an inventory had been prepared, the Magistrate had merely endorsed it as “seen” rather than certifying it in accordance with the 2022 Rules. The State admitted the absence of criminal antecedents and the nature of the Magistrate’s endorsement, while maintaining that the issue could be examined at trial.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under the NDPS Act despite the alleged recovery of commercial quantity, particularly in view of the claimed non-compliance with Section 52-A and the twin conditions under Section 37.

2. Whether the applicant’s prolonged incarceration, absence of criminal antecedents, and limited progress in the trial justified grant of bail.

The Court applied Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act, under which possession of and dealing with specified psychotropic substances is punishable.

It considered Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, which governs the preparation, certification, sampling, and disposal of seized narcotic and psychotropic substances; the applicant argued that mere endorsement of “seen” did not constitute the required certification under the applicable 2022 Rules.

Since the alleged recovery was of commercial quantity, the Court considered the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act: there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty, and the accused must not be likely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Court also considered the applicant’s period of custody, lack of criminal antecedents, and the stage of the trial as relevant bail factors.

The Court noted that the applicant had remained incarcerated for more than one year, had no criminal antecedents, and that the trial had progressed only to the examination of one prosecution witness.

It further took into account the applicant’s contention that the inventory had not been substantially certified under Section 52-A because the Magistrate had only marked it “seen”; the State did not dispute this factual position, although it submitted that the issue remained a matter for trial.

On the material placed before it, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case concerning satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 37, particularly in light of the alleged Section 52-A deficiency and the absence of any apparent likelihood of future criminal activity based on his clean antecedent record.

Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court therefore considered bail appropriate.

The Court directed that Sharukh Khan be released on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions that he attend every trial hearing without seeking unnecessary adjournments, surrender his passport, if any, within three days of release, and refrain from engaging in similar unlawful activity in the future.