Bail application under Section 483 BNSS in an NDPS case involving recovery of Preevon Spas Plus capsules from the petitioner, allegedly a pillion rider. The court held he failed to overcome the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act and rejected bail, while requesting expeditious trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
04.11.2025 21 Bd. Rejected Calcutta High Court Ct.3 In the Circuit Bench at Jalpairuri
C.R.M. (NDPS) 404 of 2025 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Jaigaon Police Station Case No. 112 of 2025 dated 05.06.2025 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. And In the matter of : Rajat Majid @ Chhotu …. Petitioner Mr. Pritam Roy Mr. Nikehen Tamang …for the Petitioner. Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty Mr. Sourav Ganguly ...for the State
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner was apprehended allegedly as pillion rider of a scooter wherefrom 34 bundles Preevon Spas Plus capsules each bundle contains 120 pieces of capsules was recovered. He further submits that the co-accused person is on court bail and the observation of the trial court in the order dated 8th August, 2025 that the recovery was made from the exclusive possession of the petitioner is unfounded. Considering the fact that the investigation has already been ended in charge-sheet and also considering his period of detention he may be released on bail on any terms and conditions as also his further detention will not yield any fruitful result.
Learned counsel for the State strongly opposed the bail prayer contending that huge quantity of narcotic substance
2
was recovered from the exclusive possession of the petitioner and the seizure list bears only the signature of the present petitioner and as such he is not on the same footing with that of the co-accused Bikash Chhetri. He further submits that trial is going to commence shortly. The charge-sheet submitted only in the month of August, 2025.
Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and that the materials placed before me discloses that the petitioner has failed to overcome the rigours mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the prayer for bail made by the petitioner stands rejected.
However, trial court is requested to expedite the trial and to make every endeavour to come to a reasonable conclusion within shortest possible period.
Both the parties are directed to communicate the order before the court below at once.
Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 404 of 2025 is 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.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant could be released on bail under the NDPS Act despite recovery of a large quantity of capsules from his alleged exclusive possession.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rajat Majid @ Chhotu
State
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
