Dismissed¶12

Bhola Dafadar @ Josim v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC22 Jul 2025CRM (NDPS)/625/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected; NDPS Act S.37 rigour; S.439 CrPC / S.483 BNSS bail; 55.19 kgs ganja recovery; Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 NDPS; custody 353 days; charge-sheet filed trial not started; fifteen witnesses; co-accused bail rejected 26 Feb 2025; accused absconding; delay attributable to accused; speedy trial Article 21; split case record; conclude trial within ten months; Dhubulia Police Station Case 286/2024; CRM (NDPS) 625 of 2025; decided 22.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; ancillary directions only — Trial Court requested to expedite the trial (conclusion preferably within ten months from the next date of hearing), at liberty to split the case record, with both parties to inform the Court below at once. ¶12

Bhola Dafadar @ Josim Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an accused in Dhubulia Police Station Case No. 286/2024 (Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29, NDPS Act) who has been in custody for about 353 days, is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC / Section 483 BNSS notwithstanding the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

The prayer for bail is rejected: the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act clearly attracts to the present petitioner, and the delay in trial is attributable to the accused persons (some of whom remain absconding).

¶10

Ratio / Principle

While rejecting bail, the Trial Court is requested to endeavour an expeditious trial, keeping in mind the petitioner's right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution; the Court below may split the case record if required and is to endeavour to conclude the proceeding preferably within ten months from the next date of hearing; both parties are directed to inform the Court below at once.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS bail rejected — Application under S.439 CrPC / S.483 BNSS by Bhola Dafadar @ Josim, accused in Dhubulia P.S. Case No. 286/2024 dt. 03/08/2024 (Ss.20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 NDPS Act; alleged recovery of 55.19 kgs. ganja from three accused), in custody about 353 days. Charge-sheet filed but trial not commenced; fifteen witnesses proposed. Co-accused's bail already rejected on 26.02.2025; some accused absconding, so trial delay attributed to accused side. Rigour of S.37 NDPS Act held to attract — bail considered and rejected. Trial Court requested to ensure expeditious trial mindful of Art. 21 speedy-trial right, at liberty to split case record, and to endeavour conclusion preferably within ten months from next date of hearing; both parties to inform Court below at once. Application disposed of (decided 22.7.2025).

¶1

22.7.2025

¶2

CRM (NDPS) No. 625 of 2025

¶3

akb Sl. 41 In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Ct.29 Procedure Code, 1973 (as amended upto date)/Section 483 of the Rejected Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with the Dhubulia Police Station Case No. 286/2024 dated 03/08/2024 corresponding to Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶4

And In re: Bhola Dafadar @ Josim … petitioner Mr. Achin Jana Mr. Sourav Chakraborty Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh Mr. Bhaskar Dolui Ms. Chetna Rustagi …for the petitioner Mr. Saryati Datta Mr. Akash Ganguly …for the State

¶5

Prosecution case is that 55.19 kgs. of Ganja was allegedly recovered from the three accused persons and the petitioner is in custody for about 353 days.

¶6

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the charge sheet has already been submitted but the trial has not yet been started and the prosecution proposes to examine fifteen witnesses and nobody knows when the trial would be concluded and as such the petitioner may be enlarged on bail on any terms and conditions.

¶7

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the bail prayer of a co-accused was rejected by this Court on 26^th February, 2025 and the present petitioner is almost on the same footing and that the delay in trial is attributable to the accused persons since some of the accused persons are still absconding and as such he opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the State and that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS

¶9

¶10

Act clearly attracts in respect of the present petitioner and that delay in trial is attributable to the accused persons, the prayer for bail is considered and rejected.

¶11

However, the Trial Court is requested to make every endeavour for expeditious trial of the instant proceeding keeping it in mind that the valuable right to speedy trial has been guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for that the Court below will also be at liberty to split the case record, if required, for the trial of the present petitioner and also make every endeavour to conclude the proceeding preferably within a period of ten months from the next date of hearing. Both parties are directed to inform the Court below at once.

¶12

The application, being CRM (NDPS) 625 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of.

¶13

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

Bhola Dafadar @ Josim v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Dafadar @ Josim v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Mintu Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal

Kaberi Dey and Ors. Vs Sourav Bhattacharjee

Ajit Mahato Vs Durgadas Gorain and Anr.

Abu Samad Vs State of West Bengal

Aidul Sk. and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

MD Karimulla Sk @ Bapi Sk Vs State of West Bengal