Magistrate's 'Seen' Endorsement Not Enough: Uttarakhand HC Grants Bail in NDPS Case Over Rule 8 Non-Compliance

Uttarakhand High Court granted bail to an NDPS accused after over two years in custody, holding that the seizure inventory lacked mandatory certification under Rule 8 of the 2022 Rules and no prosecution witness had been examined.

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, sitting singly at the Uttarakhand High Court, on 28 July 2026 allowed the bail application of Hashim, son of Anis, accused in FIR No. 113 of 2024 registered at Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar. The FIR alleged offences punishable under Sections 8/22 read with Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The court took into account that Hashim had been in custody since 24 March 2024 — over two years — that the chargesheet was filed on 31 August 2024, and that not a single one of the eight prosecution witnesses had been examined. The court also weighed a specific procedural deficiency: the seizure inventory had not been certified in the manner prescribed under Rule 8 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022.

The Bail Application and Arguments

Counsel for Hashim, Mr. Mohd Azim, argued that his client was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He acknowledged that the alleged prohibited drugs and injections were of a commercial quantity but contended there had been no substantial compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Specifically, he argued that although an inventory was prepared at the time of search and seizure, the Magistrate had not certified it in the manner provided under Rule 8 of the 2022 Rules — meaning Section 52A of the NDPS Act had not been substantially complied with.

Counsel also pointed to the prolonged pre-trial detention. Hashim had been in jail for more than two years from 24 March 2024. The chargesheet had been filed on 31 August 2024. Eight prosecution witnesses were listed, yet none had been examined by the date of the hearing. On this basis, counsel urged the court to dispense with the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

On the question of criminal antecedents, counsel disclosed one previous case of a similar nature involving recovery of charas of a smaller quantity, in which Hashim had already been enlarged on bail.

The learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, did not dispute that Hashim had been in custody since 24 March 2024 or that no prosecution witness had been examined. On the inventory issue, the State's position was that the Magistrate had certified the inventory by putting an endorsement of “seen,” and that this was entirely a matter for the trial. The AGA acknowledged, however, that this aspect could be considered while deciding the bail application. The prior case and Hashim's bail in that matter were also not disputed.

The Court's Reasoning on Inventory Certification and Delay

The court identified two principal considerations that, taken together, warranted bail.

The first was the state of the inventory. Rule 8 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 prescribes the manner in which a Magistrate must certify a seizure inventory. The court found that the inventory prepared in this case was not certified in that prescribed manner. A bare endorsement of “seen” by the Magistrate did not satisfy Rule 8. The court acknowledged that the question of whether this deficiency would ultimately affect the prosecution case is a matter for trial, but held that the deficiency could properly be taken into account at the bail stage.

The second consideration was the period of incarceration alongside the complete absence of witness examination. Hashim had spent over two years in custody. The chargesheet had been filed within about five months of arrest. Despite that, with eight prosecution witnesses on the list, the trial had not progressed to examine even one. The court treated this combination — prolonged detention, filed chargesheet, and stalled examination of witnesses — as a ground to grant bail, even where the NDPS Act ordinarily imposes strict conditions under Section 37.

The court was careful to state that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Outcome

The bail application was allowed. Justice Thapliyal directed that Hashim be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of a like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. The order carried four conditions:

• Hashim must attend every date of the trial court proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
• He must not indulge in any similar activity in future.
• He must not leave the country without prior permission of the court, and must surrender his passport, if any, to the trial court within three days of release.
• On breach of any condition, the prosecution is directed to move an application for cancellation of bail.