Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Achintya Kumar Kirtania vs Unknown on 22 July, 2025
22.07.2025
Item no.17
Ct. No. 29
BD.
C.R.M. (NDPS) 864 of 2025
In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 corresponding to under
section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 in connection with NDPS Case No. 72 of 2023
arising out of Ranaghat Police Station Case No. 630 of
2023 dated 27.09.2023 under section 21(C)/25/28/29 of
the NDPS Act, 1985.
In the matter of : Achintya Kumar Kirtania
@ Achintya Kumar Kirtaniya …. Petitioner.
Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Aminur Rahaman …for the Petitioner.
Mr. Arnab Chatterjee
Mr. Saptarshi Chakraborty…for the State.
Prosecution case is that 5000 bottles of phenesedyl
syrup containing codeine phosphate was recovered from
a vehicle which was driving by the present petitioner.
Petitioner submits that he is in custody for about one
year ten months and though the charge was framed on
24th June, 2024 and the prosecution proposes to
examine ten witnesses but they could examine so far
only one witness in part and as such nobody knows
when the trial would be concluded. Accordingly, he prays
for bail on any terms and conditions only on the touch-
stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
opposed the bail prayer and contended that the bail
prayer of the present petitioner was lastly rejected on
25th February, 2025 by this Court when this Court was
2
of the view, since with the framing of charge trial
commenced it does not permit the Court to arrive at a
finding that there is a breach of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
I have considered the submissions made on behalf
of the petitioner and the State. The certified copy of the
order sheet discloses that one witness was lastly
examined on 21st February, 2025 and since then
prosecution could not examine any further witnesses as
submitted by the parties.
However, having considered the submissions made
on behalf of the parties, the gravity of the allegation and
allegation of illegal enrichment and that the trial has
already been commenced and that rigour of section 37 of
the NDPS Act, clearly attracts in respect of the present
petitioner in this case, and as such, the prayer for bail is
considered and rejected.
However, trial court is directed to make every
endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within a
period of six months from the date of communication of
this order. If the petitioner finds no substantial
development in trial, for which the cause of delay is not
attributable to the petitioner the petitioner will be at
liberty to renew his bail prayer.
Both parties are directed to communicate this
order to the court below at the earliest.
3
CRM (NDPS) 864 of 2025 is accordingly disposed
of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, duly
applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all
requisite formalities.
(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)