Punjab-Haryana High Court
Brijesh Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056105
CRM-M-7504-2025 -1-
298 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7504-2025
Reserved on : 08.04.2025
Pronounced on: 29.04.2025
BRIJESH SINGH ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present :Mr. Abhinav Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, Asst. AG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
296 06.12.2023 Model Town, District 22, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS
Hoshiarpur Act
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court
under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 13 of the reply/custody certificate, the accused has clean antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are taken from para No.12 of the reply filed by the State,
which is extracts below:-
“xxx xxx xxx xxx
12. That it is submitted that present case was registered at P.S. Model Town,
District Hoshiarpur against co-accused Pankaj Kumar Gupta on recovery of
intoxicant capsules spasmaxx (Tramadol) having batch No.081023 SMI MRP
52, MFG 10/2023, expiry date 09/2025 total 60 strips, each strip contains 24
capsules which became 1440 capsules and on recovery of two card boxes of
intoxicant tablets having written Alprazolam tablet IP 0.5 mg on it when the
said boxes were open and 10 strips each were recovered from the boxes and
the said boxes having written on them, Alprazolam tablet IP 0.5 mg batch
No.NOYT 010 MFG 8/2023 expiry date 7/2025 and batch No.NOYT 012
MFG 9/23 expiry date 8/2025 and each strip contains 60 tablets and as such
it became 1200 tablets. The petitioner was nominated in the present case on
the disclosure statement of the co-accused Pankaj Kumar Gupta. Thereafter,
the petitioner was arrested and he got recovered (i) 30 strips (720 Capsules)
Marka Spasmaxx, (ii) 19 strips (190 Tablets) Marka Altrapar, (iii) 23 strips
(345 Tablets) Marka ultra king, (iv) 60 strips (600 capsules) Marka
Tramadol capsules and (v) 126 strips (1260 tablets) Marka Diclofon. As per
1 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:41:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056105
CRM-M-7504-2025 -2-
FSL Report, recovery effected from the petitioner contains Dicyclomine
hydrochloride, Tramadol hydrochloride, Acetamlnophen (paracetamol),
Aceclofenac and Diclofenac Sodium salt and as such recovery effected from
the petitioner falls within the category of commercial quantity which attracts
the rigors of section 37 of NDPS Act. Therefore, the present petition may
kindly be dismissed.”
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner falsely implicated in the present
FIR. He further prays for bail by imposing stringent conditions and on instructions submits
that the petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or
intermediate quantity or the offence which falls under Section 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He
further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, he has no objection
if the State files application for cancellation of his bail. He further contends that further pre-
trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family.
5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the evidence collected against the petition, which is
taken from the reply, which reads as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx xxx
10. That it is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on the basis of
confessional statement of co-accused Pankaj Kumar Gupta and he got
recovered (i) 30 strips (720 Capsules) Marka Spasmaxx, (ii) 19 strips
(190 Tablets) Marka Altrapar, (iii) 23 strips (345 tablets) Marka ultra
king, (iv) 60 Strips (600 capsules) Marka Tramadol capsules and (v) 126
strips (1260 tablets) Marka Diclofon from the medical store of which
affairs managed by the petitioner. As per FSL Report, recovery effected
from the petitioner contains Dicyclomine hydrochloride, Tramadol
hydrochloride, Acetamlnophen (paracetamol), Aceclofenac and
Diclofenac Sodium salt and as such recovery effected from the petitioner
falls within the category of commercial quantity.”
REASONING:
7. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S.
37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions
put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
8. However, the petitioner is entitled to bail because Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted
bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedents:
1) In Chitta Biswas v. The State of West Bengal, CrA 245-2020, decided on February
2 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:41:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056105CRM-M-7504-2025 -3-
7, 2020, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
According to the prosecution, the appellant was found to bein
possession of narcotic substance i.e. 46 bottles of phensydrylcough
syrup containing codeine mixture above commercial quantity.
The appellant was arrested on 21.07.2018 and continues to bein
custody. It appears that out of 10 witnesses cited to beexamined in
support of the case of prosecution four witnesses havealready been
examined in the trial.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits ofthe rival
submissions and considering the facts and circumstanceson record, in
our view, case for bail is made out.
2) In Rajib Dey v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 20 Jan 2023, SLP (Crl)
8895-2022, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. The petitioner seeks his enlargement on regular bail in a Case
arising out of FIR No.341/2021,
dated 06.12.2021, registered at Tahirpur Police Station, District Nadia,
West Bengal, under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and Section 25/27
of the Arms Act. As per the allegation, 30 bottles of phensedyl syrup
containing codeine phosphate were recovered from the petitioner. There
are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner is in
custody since 18.02.2022. The charges have already been framed and
the trial has commenced but conclusion thereof will take some time.
[3]. Keeping in view all the attending circumstances but without
expressing any views on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed
to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
3) In IsmaulSk v. State of West Bengal, decided on 02 Jan 2024,
MANU/SCOR/00506/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
The appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 1 year and 10
months. The allegation is that 50 bottles containing Phensedyl cough
syrup were recovered from the appellant. Another issue is of violation
of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985.
Considering the facts of the case and particularly in view of the fact that
the trial has hardly made any progress in the sense that only one prose-
cution witness has been partly examined, the appellant deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal)No.14827/2023 Page 1 of 4 For that
purpose, the appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court within a
period of one week from today. The Trial Court shall enlarge the appel-
lant on bail on appropriate terms and conditions, including the condition
of regularly attending the Trial Court and cooperating with the Trial
Court for early disposal of the case. The appeal is accordingly
allowed.
4) In Najrul Islam @ Najbul Hoque vs The State of West Bengal, decided on 03 Jan
2024, MANU/SCOR/00264/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was
arrested on 19.11.2022 in connection with the case arising out of FIR
No.477/2022 and the High Court rejected bail for the petitioner under
the impugned order on 06.07.2023. It is also pointed out that the 100
bottles of Phensedyt Syrup containing codiene phosphate were seized in
the case. Mr. Gupta would then advert to various bail orders passed by
3 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:41:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056105
CRM-M-7504-2025 -4-
this Court in cases with similar kind of contraband.
Admittedly, charges are yet to be framed and the trial is unlikely to
conclude in near future. The State counsel by way of explanation
submits that charges in this case could not be framed as one of the
accused is absconding.
Having regard to the circumstances here and the remote possibility of
the trial to conclude in near future and the incarceration of the petitioner
for over a year in connection with the contraband in question, we deem
it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner (Najrul Islam Najbul Hoque) be released on
bail. Appropriate terms and conditions for bail is to be imposed by the
learned Trial Court
5) InNandalal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal vs The State of West Bengal, decided on 03
Jan 2024, MANU/SCOR/00327/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. The allegations are that the petitioner along with other accused
persons were found in possession of two plastic bags a cough
containing a total of 10,000 ml. of codeine phosphate narcotic
substance. It further syrup, which is notified as a narcotic substance. It
further appears from the contents of the FIR that the petitioner, who was
found in conscious possession of two white plastic containers both of
which contained 5,000 ml. each of the said liquid. He was apprehended
at the spot and is in custody since then.
[3]. The respondent State of West Bengal has filed its counter
affidavit, in which it is candidly acknowledged that though the
investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been filed, however,
the charges are yet to be framed. The prosecution proposes to examine
10 witnesses. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take considerable time.
The petitioner is in custody for the last more than one and a half years..
He does not have any criminal antecedents.
[4]. According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
State, the narcotic substance allegedly recovered from the petitioner’s
possession is of commercial quantity’ and, as such, the rigors of Section
37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. We have considered the submission.
[5]. Taking into consideration the period already undergone by the
petitioner in custody; the fact that he does not have any criminal
antecedents and also keeping in view that the prolonged incarceration
will not serve the cause of substantial justice, however, without
expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to
release the petitioner on bail at this state. The petitioner is, accordingly,
directed to be released on bail subject to the following directions: …
6) In Subhashri Das @Rana @ Subhoshree v. The State of West Bengal, decided on
05 Jan 2024, MANU/SCOR/02185/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
The accusation is that the petitioner was found in possession of 60
bottles of Phensedyl Syrup (100 ml in each bottle). The charge sheet
was filed on 31.8.2022. The petitioner has been in custody since
12.3.2022. The application for bail filed by the petitioner was rejected
by the High Court and hence this special leave petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also counsel for the
Respondent-State. Taking note of the nature of the accusation and the
fact that the petitioner is in custody since 12.3.2022, we are of the
considered view that the petitioner can be ordered to released on bail
subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.
Ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall be produced before the Trial
Court forthwith for compliance with the order.”
7) In Indrajit Mondal @ Piglu v. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No(s). 8512-
2023, decided on 25 Jan 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[1]. The petitioner is in custody since 17 August 2021.
4 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:41:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056105
CRM-M-7504-2025 -5-
[2]. FIR No 355 of 2021 was registered at PS Murshidabad for offences
punishable
under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Durgs and Psychotropic
Substances Act 1985. The allegation is that the petitioner was found to
be in possession of ten litres of codeine phosphate.
[3]. We have heard Mr Praveen Swarup, counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, and Mr Shreyas Awasthi, counsel appearing on behalf of
the State of West Bengal.
[4]. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal states that
the charges have been framed on 4 January 2024 and the prosecution
proposes to examine seventeen witnesses.
[5]. The petitioner is in custody for over two years and five months.
There is no prospect of the trial concluding on an early date. Hence, we
are of the view that it would be appropriate and proper to release the
petitioner on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be
imposed by the Special Court under NDPS Act-cum-ADJ, Second
Court Berhampore, Murshidabad in connection with NDPS Case No
166 of 2021. Ordered accordingly.
8) In Saiful Islam v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 14 Feb 2024,
MANU/SCOR/60244/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[3]. The counsel would point out that the petitioner is in custody for
over two years since he was arrested on 08.01.2022. It is then submitted
SLP (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s).39202/2023 that the contraband in
question is 112 bottles of Phensedyl Syrup containing codeine phos-
phate.
[4]. Since bail in similar circumstances was allowed by this Court, fol-
lowing the orders enclosed to the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to
grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner (Saiful Islam) be
released on bail in connection with the case arising out of FIR
No.16/2022. Appropriate bail condition be imposed by the learned Trial
Court.
9) In Debrata Mondal vs State of West Bengal, Decided on 15 Feb 2024,
MANU/SCOR/23288/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
[3]. Going by the allegations, 290 bottles of phensedyl syrup was
recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the co-
accused. The fact is that the co-accused was enlarged on bail by
the High Court. The petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2022.
Taking into account the aforesaid aspects, we are of the
considered view that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail,
subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial
Court. Ordered accordingly. In that regard, the petitioner shall be
produced before the Trial Court, forthwith.”
10) In Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Aliul vs The State of West Bengal,
MANU/SCOR/29168/2024, Decided on 26 Feb 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
holds,
Heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of the petition and
learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. The
appellant is in custody for approximately 1 year 4 months.
During the course of submission it was pointed out by the learned
counsel for the appellant that in another case the appellant has been
granted bail and therefore, similar relief may be granted by this Court in
this case.
5 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:41:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056105
CRM-M-7504-2025 -6-
The said submission is in response to the submission made by the
learned counsel for the respondent-State that this is not the only case in
which the appellant has been apprehended. She further submitted that a
huge quantity of codeine cough syrup was recovered from the premises
(Godown) which has been tenanted by the appellant herein. Considering
the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made out.
11) In SK. Nasiruddin @ Nasirddin SK. Vs State of West Bengal, decided on 06 Mar
2024, MANU/SCOR/34261/2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[4]. The appellant is charged for the offence(s) punishable under Sec-
tion 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and seeks his enlargement on reg-
ular bail in a Case arising out of FIR No. 219 of 2022 dated 12.04.2022,
registered at P.S. Raghunathganj, Jangipur Police District, Murshid-
abad, West Bengal.
[5]. We note the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the appellant was arrested on 12.04.2022 and since then he has been in
custody as an under trial prisoner. Even though charges have been
framed, trial is yet to begin but there is no likelihood of the trial being
taken up and completed within a short period of time. It is also submit-
ted that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedents. It is also
brought to our notice that the High Court while rejecting the regular bail
application had erroneously recorded that 50 ltrs. of codeine phosphate
was recovered from the appellant. This is perhaps a mistake as recovery
of only 5 ltrs of codeine phosphate which was mentioned in the FIR.
[6]. Keeping in view all the attending circumstances but without ex-
pressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant
bail.
12) In Indadul Shah vs The State of West Bengal, decided on 20 Mar 2024,
MANU/SCOR/42687/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
The petitioner was arrested on 27.10.2022 in furtherance of an FIR
dated 27.10.2022 for offences punishable under Section 21(c)/29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He was found
in possession of 70 bottles of 100 ml. Phensedyl.
We notice from the record that charge-sheet has already been filed on
20.04.2023. There is no likelihood of the trial being taken up and
completed within a short period of time. There are no criminal
antecedents involving the petitioner herein.
Considering the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to grant bail.
The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with FIR
No. 334 of 2022 registered at Police Station Jalangi District
Murshidabad subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed
by the Trial Court.
13) InHanefKharsani @ Hanef Sheikh vs Union of India, decided on 08 Apr 2024,
MANU/SCOR/49775/2024 the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
The appellant HanefKharsani @ Hanef Sheikh has been booked for the
crime registered pursuant to NCB Crime No. 07/NCB/KOL/2023 dated
09.02.2023 in respect of offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 21
(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short, the NDPS Act‘). The appellant preferred an application under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High
Court seeking bail in the instant crime. The High Court noted that the
narcotic substance i.e. 415 bottles of Phensedyl Syrup containing
codeine phosphate which is above commercial quantity was recovered
from the appellant and in view of the statutory restrictions under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the application seeking bail was rejected.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant
6 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:41:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056105
CRM-M-7504-2025 -7-
was not in conscious possession of the offending material and that the
prosecution has not complied with the requirements of the NDPS Act.
Further, the appellant is in jail for approximately one year and two
months and the trial is not likely to be completed in the near future.
Moreover, in certain identical cases, the accused have been granted
relief of bail by this Court. Therefore, the appellant may also be granted
bail during the pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the appellant also brought to our notice the fact that
on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed and
there are seven witnesses but the trial has not yet commenced.
However, learned ASG appearing for the respondent submitted that this
is not a fit case for grant of bail inasmuch as the quantity which has
been recovered is over and above the commercial quantity and it has
become a regular feature in that part of the country where enormous
amounts of Phensedyl Syrup containing codeine phosphate is being
recovered and, therefore, the application seeking bail may be dismissed.
Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made
out.”
14) In Nijam Sheikh @ Md. Nijam SK @ MD Nizam SK v. The State of West Bengal,
decided on 15.04.2024, MANU/SCOR/52031/2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
holds,
The appellant Nizam Sheikh Md. Nijam Sk Md. Nizam Sk has been
booked for the crime registered pursuant to FIR No.90/22 dated
19.03.2022 lodged with Police Station Lalgola, District Murshidabad,
under Section 21(C)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act‘ for short). The High Court noted that
the narcotic substance i.e. 55 bottles of phensedyl syrup containing
codeine phosphate which is above commercial quantity was recovered
from the appellant and in view of the statutory restrictions under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the application seeking bail was rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent-
State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant
was not in conscious possession of the offending material and that the
prosecution has not complied with the requirements of Section 52-A of
the NDPS Act. Further, the appellant is in jail since 28.03.2022 and the
trial is not likely to be completed in the near future. Therefore, the
appellant may be granted bail during the pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the Respondent-State submitted that recording of
evidence is to be commenced from tomorrow (i.e. 16.04.2024) and
there are only eight (08) witnesses as per the charge sheet and the trial
would be completed expeditiously. Therefore, at this stage, the
appellant need not be released on bail.
It was further submitted that the other seven (07) co-accused who were
granted bail, are not cooperating with the trial of the case and therefore,
this is not a fit case where bail may be granted to the appellant herein.
Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made
out.”
15) In Mohidul Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 19 Apr 2024, SLP
(Crl) 15668- 2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. Notice in this case was issued on 29.11.2023 with the following
order:
“xx xxxx The counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since
14.09.2022 for about 14 months. He then points out that the contraband
in question is Phensedyl Syrup containing codeine phosphate and
around 320 bottles of the syrup was recovered. The petitioner’s counsel
submits that notice in similar matter was issued on 13.10.2023 in the
SLP (Crl.) Diary No.39063/2023. Issue notice, returnable in three7 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:41:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056105CRM-M-7504-2025 -8-
weeks. Dasti notice on the Standing Counsel for the State, in addition.”
[3]. Having considered the duration of custody and the nature of
Contraband i.e., 320 bottles of Phensedyl Syrup seized from the
petitioner, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner –
Mohidul Sarkar in connection with FIR No. 224 of 2022 registered at
P.S. Sagarpara. The similar orders passed by this Court in SLP
(Criminal) No. 12911 of 2023 on 22.01.2024 and Criminal Appeal No.
409 of 2024 on 25.01.2024 are also noted. Appropriate bail conditions
be imposed by the learned Special Court, Murshidabad. It is ordered
accordingly.
16) In Ripon Seikh v. State of West Bengal, decided on 19 Apr 2024,
MANU/SCOR/56447/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[4]. On the other hand, having regard to the duration of custody
since the petitioners were arrested on 23.11.2022 and the nature of
Contraband i.e., 73 bottles of Phensedyl Syrup containing Codeine
Phosphate recovered from the joint possession of the four accused, we
deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners Ripon Seikh, Sahin
Seikh and Babu Sk, in connection with FIR No. 310 of 2022 registered
at P.S. Sagarparara, District Murshidabad. Appropriate bail conditions
be imposed by the learned Special Court, Murshidabad. It is ordered
accordingly.
17) In Saniya Bibi @ Soniya Bibi vs The State of West Bengal, decided on 26 Apr
2024, MANU/SCOR/56979/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[3]. Mr. Dibyadyuti Banerjee for the petitioner points out that the
Contraband in question is 105 bottles of Phensedyl Syrup and the
petitioner, who is a lady, is in custody for about 2 years 3 months since
he was arrested on 24.01.2022. That apart, the next date of trial is fixed
on 23.07.2024 and although 16 witnesses are cited, not a single witness
is examined so far.
[4]. Notice in this case was issued on 04.03.2024 and today the State
counsel prays for time to file counter affidavit.
[5]. Having considered the circumstances and more particularly the
duration of custody, the nature of the Contraband and the unlikely
possibility of the trial getting concluded on an early date, we deem it
appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner Saniya Bibi@ Soniya Bibi in
connection with the FIR No. 30 of 2022 dated 24.01.2022 registered
with P.S. Jalangi, District Murshidabad. It is ordered accordingly.
Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the learned trial court.
18) In Saddam Hossain vs State of West Bengal, decided on 03 May 2024,
MANU/SCOR/62782/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. Notice in this case was issued on 08.12.2023, with the
towing order:-
“…The counsel refers to the FIR 37/2023 to point out that 72
bottles of 100 ml Phensedyl Syrup were seized and since each 5
ml contains 10 mg of codiene phosphate, the total quantity of
codeine phosphate in the 72 bottles would be around 14.4
grams. Such quantity is below the stipulated commercial
quantity in the Schedule to the NDPS Act.
It is further pointed out that the petitioner has been in custody
for 10 months and charges are yet to be framed in the matter.
Issue notice on the plea for bail, returnable in four weeks.
Dasti notice on the standing Counsel for the State, in addition.”
[3]. Learned counsel for the state in his turn submits that
evidence of witnesses is scheduled to commence in July 2024.
[5]. Looking at the above facts and more particularly the nature of
8 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:41:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056105
CRM-M-7504-2025 -9-
the contraband and the long custody of the petitioner since 23.01.2023,
we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly the
petitioner (Saddam Hossain) be released on bail in connection with the
case arising out of FIR No.37/2023 registered at P.S. Raninagar, District
Murshidabad. Appropriate bail condition be imposed by the learned
Trial Court.”
19) Mithun SK v The State of West Bengal, decided on 17 May 2024,
MANU/SCOR/71191/2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
The appellants have been booked for the crime registered pursuant to
FIR No.158 of 2022 dated 26.07.2022 lodged with Police Station
Sagarpara, District Murshidabad, under Section 21(C)/29 of the NDPS
Act, 1985. The High Court noted that the narcotic substance i.e. 388
bottles of phensedyl syrup containing codeine phosphate which is above
commercial quantity was recovered from the appellants and in view of
the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the
application seeking bail was rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
We have perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant(s) that the
appellants were not in conscious possession of the offending material
and that the prosecution has not complied with the requirements of
Section 52-A of the Act, 1985. Further, the appellants are in jail since 26
July 2022. Therefore, the appellants may be granted bail during the
pendency of the trial.
However, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
recovery has been made from the appellants herein.
Considering the above facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is
made out.”
20) In Bijon SK @ Golam Murselim v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08 Jul
2024, SLP (Crl) 6046-2024, a three Bench of Supreme Court holds,
[1]. The petitioner has been denied bail in connection with FIR No
252 of 2022 dated 16 November 2022 lodged at PS Doulatabad, District
Murshidabad under Sections 21(c), 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. The allegation is that the
petitioner was the owner of a truck which was alleged to be used for the
transport of 9075 bottles of Phensedyl.
[2]. The petitioner is in custody since 5 August 2023. Charges have
been framed. The prosecution proposes to examine 23 witnesses.
[3]. Considering the above facts and circumstances, an early
conclusion of the trial does not seem possible. Conscious as the Court is
of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, we are of the view that
the petitioner should be released on bail, subject to such terms and
conditions as may be imposed by the Special Court under NDPS Act,
Berhampore, Murshidabad. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be
released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be
imposed by the Special Court under NDPS Act, Berhampore,
Murshidabad in NDPS Case No 226 of 2022.”
21) In Alamgir Sk. @ Alam Sk. @ Alomgir Sk. v. State of West Bengal, decided on 12
Aug 2024, SLP (Crl.) 15176-2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable underSections
21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic SubstancesAct. It is
alleged that 99 bottles of phensedyl syrup wererecovered from him. His
bail application was dismissed by the HighCourt. He has already
undergone about 1 year and 10 months in jail.
9 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:41:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056105
CRM-M-7504-2025 -10-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
Under these circumstances of this case, we are of the opinionthat a case
of bail is made out for the petitioner.
22) In Dhananjoy Mondal v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 03 Sep 2024, SLP
(Crl.) 6526-2024,
[2]. The petitioner was arrested on 15.12.2022 and by now, he hasbeen
in custody for 1 year 9 months. The Contraband in question is100
bottles of Phensedyl Syrup.
[4]. Having considered the above and the fact that the petitionerwas
granted bail in all the three cases mentioned in paragraph 7 ofthe State’s
counter affidavit and looking at the nature of theContraband in the
present case, we deem it appropriate to grantbail to the petitioner –
Dhananjoy Mondal. It is orderedaccordingly. Appropriate bail
conditions be imposed by the learnedtrial court.The petitioner is entitled
to bail on prolonged custody because the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
granted bail on prolonged custody in the following cases:
23) In Yusuf SK v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 12-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl)
5924-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[1]. Against rejection of regular bail by the High Court andto seek bail,
the present Special Leave Petition has beenfiled. The petitioner is in
custody w.e.f. 18.12.2022 inconnection with FIR No. 462/2022 under
Sections21(C)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances
Act, 1985 and Section 27(a) of the Drugs andCosmetics Act, 1940 reg-
istered with Police StationBaishnabnagar, District Malda, West Bengal.
[2]. Having considered the submissions made by learnedcounsel for the
parties, looking to the period ofincarceration suffered by the petitioner
in a case ofrecovery of 295 bottles of phensedyl syrup, we deem itap-
propriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.Accordingly, the peti-
tioner is directed to be released on bailon furnishing the suitable bail
bonds and sureties and onsuch other terms and conditions as may be
deemed fit bythe trial court.
9. Per the custody certificate dated 07.04.2025, the petitioner’s custody in this FIR is of
01 year, 03 months and 27 days.
10. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional
liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS
Act1.
11. In Tajmul SK v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 23 Jul 2024, CrA 3047-2024,
Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[5]. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the premise
that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Despite the fact that the
appellant has been under incarceration for more than one and a half
years, the trial is yet to start, though, it is submitted by learned counsel
appearing for the State that charges have been framed. Suffice it is to
state that trial would take considerable length of time. There is no
antecedent involving the appellant.
1Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13
July 2023
10 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:41:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056105
CRM-M-7504-2025 -11-
[6]. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is
granted bail, subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the Trial
Court.
12. Given the above, the petitioner’s pretrial custody is more than some of the judicial
precedents mentioned above; the petitioner is entitled to bail under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
13. Given the drugs were medicines that attracted violation of S. 22 of NDPS Act, viz-a-
viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the
other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial
incarceration at this stage.
14. Without commenting on the case’s merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to
this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order
shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court’s official webpage.
CONDITIONS:
15. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner
shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfac-
tion of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty
Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the ac-
cused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
16. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following
personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
17. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms.
18. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the
concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence,
browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police
officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or
dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
19. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to
protect the members of society, detection squad and incapacitating the accused would be one
of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal.
Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is
being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence
of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an
intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances
11 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:41:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056105
CRM-M-7504-2025 -12-
peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if
any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from
prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms
Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this
case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would
instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused
from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
20. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and
ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In
Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition
(Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only
have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the
purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty
of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in
the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.”
21. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP
(Crl) 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the
petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him
today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary
consequences.”
22. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation of
this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
23. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case’s
merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
24. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official
web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its
authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the
downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
25. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
29.04.2025 (ANOOP CHITKARA)
renubala JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
12 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2025 01:41:39 :::