Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ajijul Sk. And Anr vs State Of West Bengal on 22 May, 2025
2025:CHC-AS:925
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
CRM (NDPS) 169 of 2025
Ajijul Sk. and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
For the petitioners : Mr. Soumyojit Das Mahapatra
Mr. Md. Golam Nure Imrohi
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta
Mr. Rahul Ganguly
With
CRM (NDPS) 230 of 2025
Ritu Khan And Anr Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioners : Mr. Soumyojit Das Mahapatra
Mr. Topodip Gupta
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
With
CRM (NDPS) 235 of 2025
Basanti Senapati Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Souvik Mitter
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty
Mr. S.S. Saha
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Rudradipta Nandy
Ms. Debjani Sahu
1
2025:CHC-AS:925
With
CRM (NDPS) 242 of 2025
Manjit Mandal Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Ms. Salma Sultana Shah
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
With
CRM (NDPS) 290 of 2025
Rashid Molla @ Bhai Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumyojit Das Mahapatra
Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowhdury
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Avishek Sinha
Mr. Akash Ganguly
With
CRM (NDPS) 295 of 2025
Ajim Sk. Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumyojit Das Mahapatra
Mr. Topodip Gupta
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Saryati Dutta
Ms. Mamata Jana
With
CRM (NDPS) 312 of 2025
Md. Nizam Uddin @ Guddu Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau
For the State : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Md. Zishan Uddin
Mr. Abhishek Purohit
Mr. Prithiraj Das
For the NCB : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Tribedi, Sr. Adv. (DASG)
Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu
Mr. Debapriya Samanta
2
2025:CHC-AS:925
With
CRM (NDPS) 337 of 2025
Sabaktulla Momin and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioners : Mr. Avik Gupta
Mr. Purbayan Chakraborty
Mr. Akash Ghosh
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Avishek Sinha
Ms. Rajnandini Das
With
CRM (NDPS) 345 of 2025
Mahesh Prasad Jaiswal Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Md. Wasim Akram
Ms. Sabrina Parveen
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Ld. APP
Ms. Madhumita Basak
With
CRM (NDPS) 350 of 2025
Mazarul Haque @ Md. Mazaharul Haque Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Roy
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Ms. Subhasree Patel
Ms. Puja Goswami
With
CRM (NDPS) 356 of 2025
Amanu Sk @ Md. Amanu Sekh Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Avinaba Patra
Mr. Agnik Maulik
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Avishek Sinha
Mr. Sourath Nandy
3
2025:CHC-AS:925
With
CRM (NDPS) 373 of 2025
Fainul Sk. @ Sekh Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Wasim Akram
Ms. Sabrina Parveen
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Joydeep Roy
Mr. Dipankar Paramanick
With
CRM (NDPS) 377 of 2025
Ariful Islam And Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioners : Mr. Avik Ghatak
Mr. Purbayan Chakraborty
Mr. Akash Ghosh
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Joydeep Roy
Ms. Afreen Parveen
With
CRM (NDPS) 394 of 2025
Swapan Alias Moni Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty
Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Saha
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya
Mr. Rajashree Tah
With
CRM (NDPS) 401 of 2025
Abdul Khalek Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Wasim Akram
Ms. Sabrina Parveen
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
With
CRM (NDPS) 412 of 2025
Diwakar Mandal and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
4
2025:CHC-AS:925
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Rana Mukherjee
Ms. Trina Mitra
With
CRM (NDPS) 423 of 2025
Md. Sahajan Sk. And Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioners : Mr. Avik Ghatak
Mr. Purbayan Chakraborty
Mr. Akash Ghosh
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
With
CRM (NDPS) 490 of 2025
Jahangir Alam and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioners : Mr. Purbayan Chakraborty
Mr. Akash Ghosh
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
With
CRM (NDPS) 501 of 2025
Bapi Mondal @ Bappli Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Avishek Sinha
Mr. Parvez Anam
With
CRM (NDPS) 516 of 2025
Sunil Garai Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra
Ms. Madhurai Sinha
Ms. Upasana Banerjee
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Ld. APP
Ms. Sudeshna Das
5
2025:CHC-AS:925
With
CRM (NDPS) 518 of 2025
Sadhu Mondal and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioners : Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra
Mr. Md. Golam Nure Imrohi
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Ms. Sreyashee Biswas
Mr. Sandip Kundu
With
CRM (NDPS) 520 of 2025
Sajal Haldar Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra
Mr. Md. Golam Nure Imrohi
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Ms. Amita Gaur
Mr. Saptarshi Chakraborty
With
CRM (NDPS) 521 of 2025
Rasid Sk. @ Rashid Sk Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra
Mr. Md. Golam Nure Imrohi
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
With
CRM (NDPS) 524 of 2025
Pradeep Xavier Tirkey @ Pradip Xaviar and Anr Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioners : Mr. Purbayan Chakraborty
Mr. Akash Ghosh
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Joydeep Roy
6
2025:CHC-AS:925
Ms. Puspita Saha
With
CRM (NDPS) 528 of 2025
Rony Sk. @ Rony Shaikh Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra
Mr. Md. Golam Nure Imrohi
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Ld. APP
Ms. Rita Dutta
With
CRM (NDPS) 548 of 2025
Achinta Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Sarjati Dutta
Mr. Asraf Mondal
With
CRM (NDPS) 549 of 2025
Anwar Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Ms. Sreyashi Biswas
Mr. Rajesh Jana
With
CRM (NDPS) 552 of 2025
Safikul Sk. Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandip Chakraborty
Mr. Kaustav Das
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Ms. Sreyashee Biswas
Mr. Sobhan Gani
7
2025:CHC-AS:925
Heard on : 20.05.2025
Judgment on : 22.05.2025
Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. Placing reliance mainly on paragraph 21 of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State
of Haryana & another reported in 2025 SCC online SC 269, each and
every petitioner of the above mentioned applications, all of whom, are
accused of committing offences under the provision of Narcotic Drugs and
psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(hereinafter referred as NDPS Act,) made
a prayer before this court to pass order of release forthwith, alternatively to
grant ad-interim bail, pending disposal of bail application on merit, on the
ground that when they were arrested they were not communicated with the
grounds of arrest or grounds of arrest in their vernacular language or the
language which they understand as mandated under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India read with section 52(1) of NDPS Act.
2. Before entering into the merit of all such prayers, let me reproduce
paragraph 21 of Vihaan Kumar’s Case (Supra).
“21. Therefore, we conclude:
a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a
mandatory requirement of Article 22(1);
b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested
person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts
constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person
effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of
communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is
achieved;
c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of
Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to
prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1);
d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental
rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to
a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of
the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article8
2025:CHC-AS:925
22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a
criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate
the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of
chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article
22(1);
e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for
remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with
Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and
f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to
forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail
even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions
do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued that
time and again the Apex Court and the High Courts have taken consistent
view that a person before getting arrested should know as to why he is being
arrested. Referring Constitution Bench Judgment in in Harikishan Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1962 SC 911 and also
referring the judgment of Madhu Limaye and others reported in 1969 (1)
SCC 292, it has been contended that the Magistrate across India is under
obligation to check the validity of arrest before remanding them into custody
and they were further reminded not to obliviate of the fact that an order of
judicial remand does not get affirmation, which is in contrast to our
constitutional as well as statutory pre requisites.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon Deepak
Mahajan’s Case reported in (1994) 3 SCC 440, where it has been clearly
observed that a statutory duty is enjoined on arresting officer to inform the
arrestee of the grounds for such arrest as contemplated under Article 22(1)
of the Constitution and section 50 of the Code of Criminal procedure and
they have necessarily to make records of their statutory functions, showing
the name of the informant and other particulars.
9
2025:CHC-AS:925
5. Referring a recent judgment in Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India,
reported in (2024) 7 SCC 676 learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that while dealing with a bail application in money laundering case under
the Act of 2002, the Supreme Court once again came down heavily upon the
magistrate for non-adherence of the constitutional mandate before
remanding the accused under section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. In that case the remand order under section 167(1) of the Cr.P.C.
was conspicuously silent as to whether the learned Magistrate therein has
perused the ground of arrest or not and the appellant therein was granted
bail because of such elementary fault on the part of the prosecution as well
as magistrate, making arrest illegal.
6. They further argued that it is true that later on such view was
criticised in the case of Ram Kishor Arora Vs. E.D., reported in (2024) 7
SCC 599 as the same runs counter to Vijay Madan Lal Chowdhury Vs.
Union of India, reported in (2023) 12 SCC 1 but the same was doubted
only because the case was of Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the
interpretation of section 19 has been done by a Larger Bench in Vijay
Madan Lal Chowdhury’s Case (Supra). However, they submit that a
review petition has been filed which is pending for further hearing.
7. This issue was once again raised in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State
NCT Delhi reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 where the Apex Court again
reiterated that ‘reason of arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’ are not the same
thing, as the reasons of arrest as indicated in the arrest memo are purely
formal parameters viz. to prevent the accused persons from committing any
offence, for proper investigation of the offence, to prevent the accused
10
2025:CHC-AS:925
person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering
with such evidence in any manner, to prevent the arrested persons for
making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court
or to the investigating officers, whereas the grounds of arrest would be
required to contain all such details in hand of the investigating officer which
necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of
arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic
facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of
defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. In this context
petitioners also heavily relied upon observations made by Supreme Court in
Paragraph 13 to 21 of Vihaan Kumar’s Judgment (Supra).
8. Accordingly petitioners contention is that in a criminal case ‘innocent
till found guilty’ is the touchstone in criminal justice delivery system and
section 52 of the NDPS Act uses the term ‘shall’ which needs no elaboration
that the arrestee has the statutory right of knowledge as to why he is being
detained. Since all the bail applicants/ the petitioners herein specifically
averred that they have been falsely implicated by the prosecuting agency
and before passing remand order they had no knowledge as to why they
have been detained and forwarded before a court of law, so there is complete
violation of the mandate of law and as such each and every petitioner is
entitled to be released on bail instantly without going into further merit of
their respective cases.
9. While coming to the factual aspect of each and every case the ground
taken by petitioner(s) of respective cases are as follows:-
11
2025:CHC-AS:925
10. CRM (NDPS) 169 of 2025
(i) The arrest memos has been prepared in English wherein the petitioners
put their LTI which shows that they could not understand the language of
arrest memo even.
(ii) No ground of arrest has been informed (iii) FIR/forwarding report/first remand order passed by the court does not
show that there has been communication regarding grounds of arrest.
(iv) The independent witness put their LTI in the seizure list as well as the
arrest memo, which gives an assumption that independent witness had
no knowledge about the content
11. CRM NDPS 312 of 2025
The petitioner has not been served with any piece of paper by the NCB
Officials in writing or in any other way which can show the ground of his
arrest which according to petitioner is complete violation of article 22(1) of
the Constitution.
12. CRM NDPS 490 of 2025
The petitioners after being arrested were not informed of the grounds for
such arrest either orally or in writing in violation of article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India read with section 52(1) of NDPS Act. The arrest
memos are also complete silent on this aspects. No document was
handed over at the time of arrest or production before the court.
13. CRM NDPS 423 of 2025
The ground of bail prayer is the same as above.
14. CRM NDPS 528 of 2025
(i) No ground of arrest has been informed to the petitioner
(ii) FIR/forwarding report/first remand order passed by the ld.
Magistrate does not show that there has been communication
regarding ground of arrest
(iii) The petitioner was apprehended on 27.09.2024 but produced before
the court on 30.09.2024 which is also an infraction of constitutional
safeguard under article 22(2)
15. CRM NDPS 521 of 2025
(i) No ground of arrest has been informed to the petitioner
(ii) FIR/forwarding report/first remand order passed by the ld.
Magistrate does not show that there has been communication
regarding ground of arrest.
12
2025:CHC-AS:925
16. CRM NDPS 520 of 2025
Grounds for bail is same as above.
17. CRM NDPS 518 of 2025
(i) The arrest memo has been prepared in English wherein the petitioner
no.1 put his LTI and the petitioner no.2 signed in Bengali which
means that they could not understand the language of arrest memo
even
(ii) No ground of arrest has been informed to the petitioners
(iii) FIR/forwarding report/first remand order passed by the learned
Magistrate does not show that there has been communication
regarding ground of arrest
(iv) No videography was done in compliance with mandatory provision.
18. CRM NDPS 516 of 2025
(i) No ground of arrest has been informed
(ii) FIR/forwarding report/first remand order passed by the ld.
Magistrate does not show that there has been communication
regarding ground of arrest.
(iii) No penal provision under which they have been booked has been
mentioned in the arrest memo even.
19. CRM NDPS 552 of 2025
(i) Written ground of arrest was not given to the accused or his
relatives
(ii) Videography of the entire process of alleged search and seizure has
not been done.
20. CRM NDPS 377 of 2025
(i) The documents served upon the petitioners purportedly as
communication of the grounds of arrest, merely records that a phone
call was made to their family members. In fact no such call was
made.
(ii) The grounds of arrest were not conveyed in writing to the family
members or nominated persons
(iii) The petitioners who belong to the working class and are not
conversant with English were purportedly informed of their grounds
of arrest, a language they do not understand.
21. CRM NDPS 295 of 2025
(i) No grounds of arrest has been informed
13
2025:CHC-AS:925
(ii) FIR forwarding report/first remand order passed by the
Magistrate does not show that there has been communication
regarding ground of arrest.
(iii) Column 2 (c) of both the arrest memo remains blank which shows
that none of the friend /relative/legal aid organization/local
police station has been informed violating section 50A of the
Cr.P.C.
(iv) The arrest memo has been prepared in English where in the
petitioners put their LTI which shows that they could not
understand the language of arrest memo even.
22. CRM 290 of 2025
(i) Reasons for arrest has been informed through arrest cum
personal search memo but no ground of arrest has been
informed to the petitioner
(ii) The arrest memo has been prepared in English wherein the
petitioner put his LTI, which means that he could not
understand the language of arrest memo.
(iii) FIR forwarding report/first remand order dated 20.02.2023
passed by learned Special court does not show that there has
been communication regarding ground of arrest.
23. CRM NDPS 230 of 2025
(i) No ground of arrest has been informed
(ii) FIR/forwarding report/first remand order passed by Magistrate
does not show that there has been communication regarding
ground of arrest.
(iii) Arrest memo preparing in English whereas the petitioners
somehow draw their signature in Bengali which shows that they
cannot understand the language even.
(iv) Column 2 (c) of both arrest memo remains blank which shows
that none of the friend/relative/legal aid organization local
police station has been informed violating section 50 A of the
Cr.P.C.
24. CRM NDPS 356 of 2025
(i) Grounds of arrest has not been communicated to the petitioner at
the time of arrest
(ii) Ground of arrest never communicated to the petitioner in
vernacular language when petitioner put his LTI on that paper.
(iii) Memo of arrest does not bear any column for describing the
reasons for arrest or ground for arrest.
(iv) There is nothing to show that ground of arrest was read over and
explained to the petitioner who is an illiterate person.
25. CRM NDPS 373 of 2025
(i) Grounds of making prayer is the same.
14
2025:CHC-AS:925
26. CRM NDPS 235 of 2025
(i) The petitioner has not been communicated the grounds of arrest
in writing or otherwise and the same is apparent from the memo of
the arrest of the petitioner.
(ii) There is no indication that the petitioner was arrested after a
written report obtaining prior permission of the judicial magistrate
and as such arrest is void ab initio.
(iii) The arrest of the lady accused was made in between sunset and
sunrise without any written permission from local magistrate. There
are discrepancies in between the arrest memos of four accused
persons
27. CRM NDPS 524 of 2025
(i) Both petitioners were arrested without being informed about
ground of arrest
(ii) No document was handed over at the time of arrest
(iii) The arrest memo is also silent on this aspect.
28. CRM NDPS 337 of 2025
(i) the petitioner were arrested without being informed of the grounds of
arrest either orally or in writing
(ii) No documents was handed over at the time of arrest or first
production before the court
(iii) The arrest memo are also completely silent on this aspects
29. The grounds taken other applications being CRM (NDPS) No.
412/2025, CRM (NDPS) No. 242/2025, CRM (NDPS) No. 230/2025, CRM
(NDPS) No. 401/2025, CRM (NDPS) No. 549/2025, CRM (NDPS) No.
501/225, CRM (NDPS) No. 345/2025, CRM (NDPS) No. 548/2025, CRM
(NDPS) No. 394/2025, are almost of the same i.e. grounds of arrest was
never communicated to the accused.
30. Mr. Kishore Dutta, learned Advocate General for the State in all the
above-mentioned applications (except CRM NDPS 312 of 2015 which has
been investigated by the NCB) submits that the state has complied the
statutory provisions at the time of arrest. Almost all the accused persons
15
2025:CHC-AS:925
herein served with arrest memo. Notice under section 50 of NDPS Act also
served and videography also done as shown in the table. As such on the
technical ground as raised by the petitioners are not sufficient to release
them even on interim bail, considering gravity of the allegations levelled
against them. So far as factual aspect is concerned, he placed his reply in
the following tabular form:-
S. CRM PS Case S.50 Videography Arrest Seizure Seizure
No. (NDPS) NDPS (case diary Memo (case List(case
No. page) diary page) diary
page)
1. 412/2025 Baishnab Pg.21,23 Mentioned in Pg. 13,16 Pg.8 275 gm of
Nagar FIR brown sugar
776/2024 Pg.6 from
petitioners
2. 373/2025 Baishnab Pg.64,65 Mentioned in Pg. 53 Pg.9 6.064 kg wet
Nagar FIR Brown Sugar
918/2024 Pg.7
3. 242/2025 Bagda Pg.8 Mentioned in Pg. 7(no Pg.9 150 bottles
470/24 seizure list signature of phensedyl
Pg.13 the relative or 100 ml each.
Also mentioned guardian)
in inventory. And pg.16(re
Pg.11 arrest
complainant's
signature)
4. 524/2025 Baishnab Pg.14,15 Pg.22 Pg. 38,39 Pg.16,17,18 9.989 kg of
Nagar heroin.
542/2023
5. 350/2025 Goalpokher Mentioned Mentioned in Pg. 13 Pg. 14 100 bottles of
30/2024 in charge seizure list. Pg. phensedyl
sheet. 86
Pg.92
6. 518/2025 chapra Pg. 20 Pg. 15 Pg. 11 Pg. 14 140 Kg of
990/2024 ganja
7. 337/2025 Kaliachak P.6, 7, 11 Mentioned in Pg. 34, 35 Pg. 5, 120 300 gm of
811/2024 FIR Pg. 2 brown sugar
from the
vehicle of
petitioner
No.1
8. 520/2025 Bhimpur Pg. 16 Pg. 58 Pg. 26 Pg.18, 19 200 bottles of
340/2023 Grounds of phensedyl
arrest from a
mentioned in vehicle in the
FIR Pg.4 petitioner's
presence;
1800 bottles
of phensedyl
from a
vehicle in the
presence of
co-accused
9. 235/2025 Baruipur Pg. 14 Pg. 73 Pg. 35 Pg. 21 120.767 Kg
1865/2024 of ganja from
16
2025:CHC-AS:925
a vehicle
10. 230/2025 Karimpur Pg. 11, 12 Mentioned in Pg. 23, 24 Pg. 15 150 Kg of
129/2024 charge sheet. ganja from
Pg. 473 the
petitioners in
the presence
of GO
11. 295/2025 Baishab Pg. 15 Mentioned in Pg.9 Pg. 6 420 gm of
Nagar FIR Pg. 4 brown sugar
561/2024 from the
petitioner
12. 490/2025 Baishnab Pg. 176, Mentioned in Pg. 168, 169, Pg.165,166 400 gm of
Nagar 177, 178 FIR Pg. 4 170 Grounds brown sugar
590/2024 of arrest were from the
communicated petitioners
to the accused
pg. 4
13. 169/2025 Ranitala Pg. 8,9 Mentioned in Pg.3,4 Pg.12 312 gm of
424/2024 FIR pg.2 heroin from
the
petitioners
14. 423/2025 Kaliachak Mentioned Pg.43 Pg. 24 to 26 Pg.21 451 gm of
1209/2024 in FIR Pg.4 grounds of brown sugar
arrest from the
mentioned in petitioners
FIR pg.5
15. 552/2025 Kaliachak Mentioned Mentioned in Pg.11 Pg.13 435 gm of
1212/2023 in FIR Pg.2 FIR pg.2 Grounds of heroin from
arrest the petitioner
mentioned in
FIR pg. 2
16. 401/2025 Sankrail Pg.23 Mentioned in Pg.9 Pg.7 87.6 kg of
680/2023 FIR pg.2 ganja from
the petitioner
17. 377/2025 Gazole No Mentioned in Pg.31,32,33,34 Pg. 38 to 20000 bottles
81/2025 FIR pg.18 served notice 53 of phensydyl
indicating of 100 ml
grounds of each from a
arrest. pg. 23 vehicle in the
to 26 presence of
petitioners
18. 521/2025 Rani Nagar Pg.12 Pg.40 Pg. 17 Pg.18 600 bottles of
523/2024 Grounds of phensydyl
arrest 100 ml each
mentioned in from the
FIR Pg.3 petitioners
19. 549/2025 Baishnab Not No Pg.55 grounds Pg.84 350 bottles of
Nagar applicable of arrest phensedyl
491/2021 mentioned in from an
charge sheet. abandoned
pg. 101 vehicle
(petitioner is
the owner of
the vehicle)
20. 290/2025 Sankrail Pg.6 Pg. 4 Pg.11 Pg.10 3455 lit of
154/2023 codeine from
the
petitioners
21. 528/2025 Kaliganj Pg.14 Mentioned in Pg. 9 (Note: Pg.7 39.870 kg of
843/2024 FIR pg.5 petitioner was ganja from
arrested on the vehicle in
27.9.2024, the
forwarded to petitioner's
court on presence
30.09.2024-
17
2025:CHC-AS:925
pg. 12 of
petition)
22. 501/2025 English Pg.5 Pg.11 Pg.10 Pg.7,16 188 bottles of
Bazar triprolidine
722/2024 hydrochloride
and codeine
phosphate
from the
petitioner
23. 356/2025 Kaliachak Not No Petitioner was Pg.56 1610 kg of
56/2021 applicable absconding, he brown sugar
was arrested from the
after 3 years petitioner's
from date of house
incident.
24. 345/2025 Howrah Pg.38 Mentioned in Pg.34 Pg.24 86 gm of
GRPS FIR pg.4,5 cocaine from
98/2023 petitioner.
25. 516/2025 Jamboni Pg.8 Mentioned in Pg.36 Pg.18 25.512 kg of
88/2024 FIR pg.3 Grounds of ganja from a
arrest vehicle in the
mentioned in petitioners'
arrest cum presence.
inspection
memo. Pg. 34
and in FIR
pg.6
26. 548/2025 Kaliachak Not No Pg. 30 Pg.4 300 bottles of
436/2022 applicable phensedyl
from a
vehicle
(petitioner is
the owner of
the vehicle)
27. 394/2025 Gobardanga Pg.11 Pg.80 Pg. 8 Pg.7 5 lit of
194/2024 Grounds of codeine from
arrest the petitioner
mentioned in
FIR pg. 3
28. 312/2025 Information of arrest duly communicated to the accused as appearing in the case diary.
31. At the outset the preamble of the NDPS Act needs to be recollected:-
“An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs, to
make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations
relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances to provide for the
forfeiture of property derived from, or used in, illicit traffic in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances, to implement the provisions of the
International Conventions on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
and for matters connected therewith.”
32. In the course of hearing learned Advocate General on behalf of the
State and Mr. Trivedi learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the
NCB have relied upon the Three Judges Bench judgment in Narayana
Swamy Rabishankar Vs. Assistant Director of Revenue (intelligence)
18
2025:CHC-AS:925
reported in (2002) 8 SCC 7 and contended that the same question of non-
communication of ground of arrest was agitated in a proceeding under
NDPS Act before the Supreme Court and in para 6 of the said judgment
Court held as follows:-
“6. It was also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the ground on
which the appellant was arrested was not communicated to him. We find no
merit in this because the arrest memo clearly indicates the offence stated to have
been committed by the appellant under the NDPS Act. Further, the record also
shows that copy of the arrest memo Ext. P-20 was received by the appellant.”
33. Mr. Kishore Dutta learned Advocate General and Mr. Trivedi learned
Additional Solicitor General both argued that the judgment so far relied
upon by the petitioners do not relate to any offence under the NDPS Act.
They further argued that the observation made in the said Narayana
Swamy Rabishankar Vs. Assistant Director of Revenue (intelligence)
(supra) judgment has not yet been overruled by any Larger Bench. Both of
them accordingly submit that aforesaid each and every bail application is to
be disposed off on merit and the petitioners are not entitled to get any
interim bail on that ground. They further submits that learned Trial Court in
all the cases have authorized remand prayer and in most of the cases either
investigation completed or the investigation is on the verge of completion
and in some of the cases even trial started and as such this is not the
appropriate stage for releasing all the accused persons on bail after such a
long period of time from arrest, only on the ground that the information
about the grounds of arrest was not systematically communicated to them.
Both of them also submit that if at this stage all the petitioners are being
released only on that ground, it would amount to opening of a flood gate and
19
2025:CHC-AS:925
there is every likelihood that the accused persons will abscond and the trial
will be either hampered or will be filed for ever.
34. Having heard so, I also find that the Apex Court while dealt with a bail
application under section 37 of the NDPS case in Superintendent,
Narcotic Control Bureau, Chennai Vs. R. Paulsamy reported in (2000) 9
SCC 549 where the points raised were that there was prima facie violation
of section 52 of the NDPS Act and there was also prima facie non-
compliance with section 57 of the NDPS Act and therefore whether these two
violations were sufficient for adopting the exceptional course of granting
bail to an accused involved in the offence under the NDPS Act. The Apex
Court replied the same in para 5 to 7 as follows:-
“5. This court has laid down the parameters to be followed while considering the
application for bail moved by an accused involved in offences under the NDPS
Act vide Union of India v. Ram Samujh [(1999) 9 SCC 429 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1522 :
JT (1999) 6 SC 397] . It is unnecessary for us to repeat those parameters over
again. We have no doubt that learned Single Judge has not followed the
aforesaid parameters in this case.”
“6. In the light of Section 37 of the Act no accused can be released on bail when
the application is opposed by the Public Prosecutor unless the court is satisfied
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such
offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is
unfortunate that matters which could be established only in offence regarding
compliance with Sections 52 and 57 have been pre-judged by the learned Single
Judge at the stage of consideration for bail. The minimum which learned Single
Judge should have taken into account was the factual presumption in law
position that official acts have been regularly performed. Such presumption can
be rebutted only during evidence and not merely saying that no document has
been produced before the learned Single Judge during bail stage regarding the
compliance with the formalities mentioned in those two sections.”
“7. We may also observe that learned Single Judge has not recorded a finding in
terms of Section 37 of the Act which is sine qua non for granting bail to an
accused involved in the offence under the Act.”
35. In Balbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2002) 8 SCC 7
where the appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband
substance, the allegations of non-disclosure of the purpose of search and
20
2025:CHC-AS:925
the grounds of arrest to her were held to be of technical nature. The
observation of court in para 20 and 21 are as follows:-
“20. In view of the concurrent findings of the trial court and as also the High
Court holding that the appellant was in conscious possession of the said
contraband goods, the allegation of non-disclosure of the purpose of search and
the grounds of arrest to her are all of technical nature and without there being
any material force in them. The appellant herself knew that she was being
searched for possession of contraband goods, and therefore, she had also
sought for protection as provided under Sections 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act.”
“21. The appellant was being searched and arrested on account of possession of
contraband goods. The violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act was clearly
known to her. The allegation that she herself asked for such protection instead of
prosecution giving her the option to be searched before a gazetted officer, as
required under the law, would not in any manner adversely affect her conviction
and order of sentence passed by both the courts below. No prejudice could be
shown by the appellant against the DSP, who was a gazetted officer and the
lady officer present at the time of search.”
36. In Madan Lal and another Vs. state of H.P. reported in (2003) 7
SCC 465 it was held that where the possession is established the persons
who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it
because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge.
Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this positon because of
the presumption available in law. Similar, is the position in terms of section
54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of
illicit articles.
37. In most of the instant bail applications as stated above the recovery
was made from the possession of the petitioners who according to
prosecution case knew about the transportation or carrying narcotic
substance and each of them had alleged role in the transportation and/or
possession with conscious knowledge of what they are doing.
38. Even on perusal of Vihaan Kumar Case (supra) in paragraph 17, it
appears that the argument canvassed on behalf of the respondents is that
even if the appellant is released on the grounds of violating Article 22, the
21
2025:CHC-AS:925
arresting officer can arrest him again or not and the Hon’ble Supreme court
held “at this stage it is not necessary to decide the issue.” Accordingly
Supreme Court has not yet completely negated said issue and has kept it
open for future consideration.
39. Petitioner heavily relied upon a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this
court in CRM (NDPS) 144 of 2025, (Ramkrishna Vs. State of West
Bengal), where in an offence under NDPS Act, bail prayer of petitioner was
allowed only on the ground of non-compliance of section 52(1) of the NDPS
Act, without going into merit of the case. But it appears that the above-
mentioned judgments of Supreme Court passed in connection with stringent
provisions under the NDPS case were neither referred non discussed in the
said judgment, while dealt with bail prayer of the accused, and as such it is
not binding upon me.
40. Considering observations made in above mentioned cases viz.
Superintendent, NCB Chennai (Supra) and Narayanaswamy Rabi
Shankar (supra), it appears to me that the offence under NDPS Act
containing stringent provisions are not to be equated with general offences.
Needless to say that the NDPS Act has been enacted by the legislature to
achieve specific purpose and objectives as stated in preamble and in the
object and reasons of the Act. Fundamental rights usually strikes a balance
between individual liberty with the interest of justice and social control.
Offences under NDPS Act are very serious in nature and any sort of
indulgence against combatting such menace may have a detrimental effect
in the society, more specifically it’s adverse impact may destroy specially the
young generation of the country. It is quite expected that the stringent
22
2025:CHC-AS:925
provisions of the Act which includes section 37 of the Act must be construed
in the manner which would enhance the objectives of the special Act and
not to frustrate the very purpose and objective of the Act. While dealing with
such issue, court must be cautious in exercise of the power, so that it must
not create any undue advantage or benefit to the persons accused of serious
offences under the NDPS Act or to demoralise the officers who have been
specially conferred with the powers to combat the serious crime and/or
encourage the unscrupulous element to commit crime. An offence under the
NDPS Act cannot be compared with the ordinary offences committed against
an individual or with the accused of ordinary crime. It is a crime against
society at large and the nation itself. I am afraid that any other
interpretation of stringent provisions including section 37 of NDPS Act may
frustrate the very purpose and objectives of the Act.
41. In such view of the matter and also in view of the observation made by
Three Judges Bench in Narayanaswamy Rabi Shankar Case (supra) and
Division Bench judgment in Superintendent, NCB, Chennai case (Supra)
which observations still holds good, so far as the offences under NDPS act is
concerned, I am agreeable with the submissions made by learned Advocate
General and learned Additional Solicitor General that the petitioners are not
entitled to release forthwith without hearing bail application on merit nor
entitled to immediate release on interim bail on the ground mentioned in
their respective petitions. Accordingly prayer for release or enlargement on
interim bail prayer made by the petitioners on their alleged ground that the
ground of arrest was not communicated to each of the petitioners are not
allowed at this stage. Since, the petitioners were not heard on merit in
23
2025:CHC-AS:925
respect of their respective bail prayers, the rest above-mentioned 27
applications are hereby detagged from the application being CRM NDPS
169/2025 and each application will be listed for hearing on merit,
immediate after re-opening of the court after summer vacation.
42. The interim bail prayer and/or forthwith release prayer made on
behalf of the petitioners in the aforesaid 28 bail applications thus stands
disposed of.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this Judgment, if applied for, be given
to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(DR. AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.)
24