Rosidul Mondal Vs the State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2025)

Rosidul Mondal Vs the State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who has spent about ten months in custody in connection with the recovery of 588 grams of heroine from his exclusive possession, is entitled to release on bail under section 439 CrPC / section 483 BNSSA notwithstanding that the rigour of section 37 of the NDPS Act attracts in his case. +1 more

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for both sides, the Court held that the rigour of section 37 of the NDPS Act clearly attracts in respect of the petitioner and accordingly rejected the prayer for bail.

Ratio / Principle

As an accompaniment to the refusal of bail, the trial court was requested to expedite the trial and come to a logical conclusion within the shortest possible time, and both parties were directed to communicate the order to the court below.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and/or section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Rosidul Mondal in connection with NDPS No. 91 of 2024, arising out of Palashipara Police Station Case no. 480 of 2024 dated 29.09.2024 under Sections 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, after recovery of 588 grams of heroine from his exclusive possession. At the hearing (19.08.2025) the petitioner had been in custody for about ten months; the charge-sheet proposed nine witnesses, of whom only the independent seizure witness P.W.1 had been examined - he did not support the prosecution case and failed to identify the petitioner on dock; the charge was framed on 19.05.2025 and trial was fixed for 24th to 26th September, 2025. Holding that the rigour of section 37 of the NDPS Act clearly attracts in respect of the petitioner, the Court rejected the prayer for bail, while requesting the trial court to expedite the trial and come to a logical conclusion within the shortest possible time, and directing both parties to communicate the order to the court below. CRM (NDPS) 691 of 2025 disposed of. Single-member bench: Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

19.08.2025 42 Bd. Ct.29

C.R.M. (NDPS) 691 of 2025

In Re:- An application for Bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and/or an application under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with NDPS No. 91 of 2024 arising out of Palashipara Police Station Case no. 480 of 2024 dated 29.09.2024 under Sections 21 (c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

And In the matter of : Rosidul Mondal …. Petitioner.

Mr. Soumik Ganguli Mr. Sayan Mukherjee Mr. Diptendu BAnerjee Ms. Pinki Sarkar …for the Petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury ...for the State

Report submitted by the State is taken on record.

Prosecution case is that 588 grams of heroine was recovered from the exclusive possession of the present petitioner. Petitioner submits that he is in custody for about ten months and prosecution proposes to examine nine witnesses as per charge-sheet and out of which they could examine only one witness so far. However, the said independent seizure witness namely P.W.1 has not supported the prosecution case and he even failed to identify the petitioner on dock. He further submits that the next date for trial is fixed on 24^th to 26^th September, 2025 and as such nobody knows when the trial would be concluded and he may be released on bail on any terms and conditions.

2

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail prayer contending that commercial quantity of narcotic substance was recovered from the exclusive possession of the present petitioner and there are other independent witness who are required to be examined by the prosecution and it is too early to say on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 that the prosecution will not succeed in trial and he further submits that the charge has been framed on 19^th May, 2025 and it is expected that the trial would be concluded within a short span of time.

Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State and that rigour of section 37 of the NDPS Act, clearly attracts in respect of the present petitioner, the prayer for bail is considered and rejected.

However, the trial court is requested to expedite the trial and come to a logical conclusion within a shortest possible time.

Both the parties are directed to communicate the order to Court below.

Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 691 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.)