Dismissed¶10

Rohit Sk @ Rahid Sk v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC19 Aug 2025CRM (NDPS)/565/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail rejected; Section 37 NDPS restrictions not overcome; phensedyl syrup codine phosphate godown recovery; tenancy plea 'Godown Ghar Varatia Chuktipatra'; co-accused Abdul Alim Sk. absconding; seizure list conscious possession signature; Berhampore Police Station case no. 1997 of 2024; C.R.M. (NDPS) 565 of 2025; Section 483 BNSS 2023; trial expedition; split-up of record.

What did the court decide?

On consideration of the submissions and the case diary materials including the seizure list, the petitioner fails to overcome the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act; the prayer for bail is rejected. ¶10

Rohit Sk @ Rahid Sk Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

19.08.2025 14 SB Rejected

¶2

C.R.M. (NDPS) 565 of 2025

¶3

In Re:- An application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with NDPS case no. 128 of 2024 arising out of Berhampore Police Station case no. 1997 of 2024 dated 07.12.2024 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act 1985.

¶4

And In the matter of : Rohit Sk. @ Rahid Sk. …. Petitioner Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra Mr. Golam Nure Imrohi …for the Petitioner Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Ld. APP Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhury ...for the State

¶5

Prosecution case is that 1000 bottles of phensedyl syrup containing codine phosphate was recovered from the godown of the present petitioner.

¶6

Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he is the owner of godown but he had let it out to Abdul Alim Sk. and in support of the same, he also annexed one “Godown Ghar Varatia Chuktipatra”. Accordingly, he submits that he is innocent and has got no connection with the alleged offence and he is in custody for about eight months and ten days and as such, he may be released on bail on any terms and conditions.

¶7

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail contending that the person with whom, the petitioner has allegedly made a tenancy agreement and who is also a coaccused, is absconding. She further submits that the seizure

¶8

¶9

list discloses that the narcotic substance was recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner and the petitioner’s signature is also appearing in the seizure list.

¶10

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and also considering the materials placed in the case diary including the seizure list, I find that the petitioner fails to overcome the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the prayer for bail made by the petitioner is rejected.

¶11

However, the Trial court is requested to expedite the trial and if required, the court below will split up the record in connection with the absconding accused. Both the parties will communicate the order to the Trial court immediately.

¶12

Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 565 of 2025 is disposed of.

¶13

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

¶14

(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Rohit Sk @ Rahid Sk v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Sk @ Rahid Sk v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mansur Ali@Mansoor Ali Vs the State of West Bengal

Anuradha Mitra Vs Anusuya Banerjee and Ors.

Dip Sankar Sinha & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and amp, Nar

Ranjan Roy Vs State of West Bengal

Sahidul Islam @ Sohidul Islam Vs State of West Bengal

Rosidul Mondal Vs the State of West Bengal