Disposed¶18

Ranjan Haq@Haque and Anr. v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC2 Jul 2025CRM(NDPS)/248/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM(NDPS) 248/2025, Calcutta HC Jalpaiguri circuit, Suvra Ghosh J., 02.07.2025 - bail rejected under S.37 NDPS; S.42 vs S.43 NDPS public-place search; ASI-rank officer search/seizure; WB Notification No.1573-Ex dt. 05.11.1985 Sub-Inspector empowerment inapplicable to S.43 recovery; commercial quantity S.21(C) NDPS; Dinhata P.S. Case 156/2025; custody over three months; S.483 BNSS 2023 application disposed.

What did the court decide?

None - prayer for bail rejected at this stage; application for bail disposed of; case diary to be returned. ¶18

Ranjan Haq@Haque and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - prayer for bail rejected at this stage; application for bail disposed of; case diary to be returned.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the search and seizure conducted by an officer of Assistant Sub-Inspector rank, i.e. below the rank of Sub-Inspector, offends the mandate of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and vitiates the recovery. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Section 42 of the NDPS Act deals with search and seizure in a building, conveyance or private place, and pursuant to a notification issued by the State of West Bengal (No.1573-Ex dated 5th November, 1985) officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector are empowered to exercise powers under that provision.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Since the seizure list indicates the search and seizure were made at Ghughumari at Nayarhat road, a public place, Section 42 of the Act is not attracted; the seizure was effected under Section 43 of the Act, and the 1985 notification has no manner of application to a recovery under Section 43.

¶14

Key takeaways

Commercial quantity of contraband articles was recovered from the 2nd petitioner, and both petitioners were found travelling together in the same vehicle prior to the interception and arrest.ratio¶15
In view of the restriction laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail under S.483 BNSS 2023 in Dinhata P.S. Case No.156 of 2025 (u/S 21(C) NDPS Act) rejected. Counsel argued the search/seizure by an officer below Sub-Inspector rank breached the S.42 NDPS mandate; the court held S.42 governs searches in buildings, conveyances or private places (where WB Notification No.1573-Ex dt. 05.11.1985 empowers officers not below Sub-Inspector), but the seizure here was made at Ghughumari on Nayarhat road, a public place, so S.42 was not attracted and the seizure fell under S.43 NDPS, to which the notification has no application. Commercial quantity was recovered from the 2nd petitioner and both petitioners were travelling together before interception and arrest; in view of the S.37 NDPS restriction the bail prayer was rejected at this stage, the application disposed of, and the case diary ordered returned. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)

¶1

21 02.07.2025 Ct.No.2

¶2

b.das Rejected

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction

¶4

C.R.M. (NDPS) 248 of 2025

¶5

In Re : An application for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 filed in connection with Dinhata P.S. Case No. 156 of 2025 dated 21.03.2025 under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act.

¶6

And In Re : Ranjan Haq @ Haque & Anr ... Petitioners. Mr. Sourav Ganguly Mr. Bibek Tarafder Mr. Gopal Roy Ms. R. Chakraborty ... for the Petitioners. Mr. Abhijit Sarkar Mr. Bhaskar Das ... for the State.

¶7

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶8

The petitioners are in custody for more than three months.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were in a vehicle when the alleged search and seizure were made. In terms of the mandate laid down under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, no police officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector could conduct the search and seizure.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer.

¶11

I have considered the material on record. It is not in dispute that the search and seizure were made by an officer of the Assistant Sub-Inspector rank. Section 42 of the Act deals with search and seizure in a building, conveyance or a

¶12

¶13

private place. In such case a notification issued by the State of West Bengal being No.1573-Ex dated 5^th November, 1985 empowers the officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to exercise powers under the said provision of law.

¶14

In the present case, the seizure list indicates that the search and seizure were made at Ghughumari at Nayarhat road which is a public place. Therefore Section 42 of the Act is not attracted herein, the seizure being effected under Section 43 of the Act. The notification also has not manner of application to the recovery under Section 43 of the Act.

¶15

Commercial quantity of contraband articles have been recovered from the 2^nd petitioner. Both the petitioners were found to be travelling together in the same vehicle prior to the interception and arrest.

¶16

In view of the restriction laid down under Section 37 of

¶17

the NDPS Act, prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

¶18

The application for bail is thus disposed of.

¶19

Case Diary be returned.

¶20

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶21

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.