Disposed¶14

Sahidul Sk @ Tokan v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC13 Aug 2025CRM (NDPS)/633/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail rejected; Section 37 NDPS Act restrictions not overcome; Section 483 BNSS bail application; 293 gms. heroin recovery; custody one year ten months; trial part-heard (9 of 15 witnesses examined); trial to be concluded preferably within six months; liberty to renew bail prayer; C.R.M. (NDPS) 633 of 2025; Palashipara Police Station case no. 320 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

Having considered the submissions of both parties, the petitioner failed to overcome the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the prayer for bail was rejected. ¶12

Sahidul Sk @ Tokan Vs the State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

13.08.2025 46 Sb Rejected

¶2

C.R.M. (NDPS) 633 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. 75 of 2023 arising out of Palashipara Police Station case no. 320 of 2023 dated 15.10.2023 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act 1985.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of : Sahidul Sk @ Tokan …. Petitioner Mr. Amit Ranjan Pati …for the Petitioner Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta Mr. Abhishek Verma ...for the State

¶6

Report submitted by the State is taken on record.

¶7

The prosecution case is that 293 gms. of heroin recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and the petitioner is in custody for about one year ten months.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution proposes to examine 15 witnesses out of which they could so far examine only nine witness and they are still to examine six more witnesses, which will take long time and considering the long period of incarceration, the petitioner may be released on bail on any terms and conditions.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail contending that huge quantity of narcotic substance was recovered from the present petitioner and the trial is in progress and considering the gravity of the

¶10

¶11

allegation, if he is released on bail, there is serious chance of his abscondance.

¶12

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and 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.

¶13

However, the Trial court is requested to expedite the trial and to conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing and if possible, to fix the date at a regular interval. If the petitioner does not find any substantial progress in trial during the said period for which, the delay in trial would not be attributable to the present petitioner, he will be at liberty to renew his bail prayer. Both the parties will communicate the order to the Trial court immediately.

¶14

Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 633 of 2025 is disposed of.

¶15

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

¶16

(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Sahidul Sk @ Tokan v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahidul Sk @ Tokan v. the 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

Basanti Senapati Vs State of West Bengal

Rubel Khan Vs State of West Bengal

Chandi Mandal Vs the Union of India

Bappa Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

Sujan Mandal Vs State of West Bengal

Saniul Sk @ Sariul Vs State of West Bengal