Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Narendra Kumar vs Unknown on 29 July, 2025
29.07.2025
25-27
sb
C.R.M. (NDPS) 646 of 2025
In Re:- An application for Bail under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in
connection with NDPS case no. 84 of 2024 arising out of
Kaliganj Police Station case no. 809 of 2024 dated
17.09.2024 under Sections 21(c)/22(c)/25/27A/28/29 of
the NDPS Act, 1985.
And
In the matter of : Narendra Kumar
…. Petitioner
With
C.R.M. (NDPS) 852 of 2025
In Re:- An application for Bail under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in
connection with NDPS case no. 84 of 2024 arising out of
Kaliganj Police Station case no. 809 of 2024 dated
17.09.2024 under Sections 21(c)/22(c)/25/27A/28/29 of
the NDPS Act, 1985.
In the matter of : Yogesh Kumar
…. Petitioner
With
C.R.M. (NDPS) 877 of 2025
In Re:- An application for Bail under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in
connection with NDPS case no. 84 of 2024 arising out of
Kaliganj Police Station case no. 809 of 2024 dated
17.09.2024 under Sections 21(c)/22(c)/25/27A/28/29 of
the NDPS Act, 1985.
In the matter of : Kabijul Mondal @ Mandal
…. Petitioner
Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra
Mr. Tapodip Guta …for the Petitioner
In C.R.M. (NDPS) 646 of 2025
C.R.M. (NDPS) 852 of 2025
Mr. Arnab Chatterjee
Ms. Dhanasree Biswas
Ms. Poulami Bose …for the Petitioner
In C.R.M. (NDPS) 877 of 2025
2
Mr. Antarikhya Basu
Ms. Madhumita Basak …for the State
The prosecution case is that 101.38 kgs. of alprazolam
and 210 kgs. of acetic anhydride were recovered from the
possession of the present three petitioners.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the
petitioners are in custody for about 10 months and chemical
examination report discloses that the substance allegedly
recovered from the possession of the petitioners, is controlled
substance and therefore, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act does not attract in the respect of the present three
petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that
investigation has already been culminated into a charge-sheet
under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as well as under Section
25A of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the
prosecution as per charge-sheet, is required to examine 15
witnesses and it will take long time to conclude the trial and
as such, they may be released on bail on any terms and
conditions.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the
bail prayer contending that the investigation discloses that the
petitioners do not have any valid licence to deal with the
controlled substance which is violative under Section 9A of
the NDPS Act, 1985 and therefore, they have committed
offence under Section 25A of the NDPS Act for which, the
3
punishment may extend up to ten years. He further submits
that huge quantity of contraband substance was recovered
from the possession of the petitioners and the trial has
already been started and two prosecution witnesses have
already been examined and the prosecution proposes to
examine six more witnesses and it is expected that the trial
would be concluded within a period of eight months.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of
both the parties and considering the gravity of the allegation
and that the trial has already been commenced, the prayer for
bail made on behalf of the present three petitioners are
rejected at this stage.
However, the Trial court is directed to conclude the trial
preferably within a period of eight months from the next date
of hearing. If the petitioners find no substantial progress in
the trial during the said period for which, the delay would not
be attributable to the accused persons, they will be at liberty
to pray for renewal of their bail prayer. Both the parties will
communicate the order to the Trial court immediately.
Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 646 of 2025 with CRM (NDPS)
852 of 2025 with CRM (NDPS) 877 of 2025 are disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite
formalities.
(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link