Dismissed¶16

Jagjiwan Sing Munda v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC4 Sept 2025CRM (NDPS)/800/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail rejected; section 37 rigour; commercial quantity opium 8.5 kgs; exclusive possession; custody 287 days; eight witnesses none examined; charge-sheet 23.05.2025; charge framed 27.08.2025; trial expedited within ten months; renewal of bail prayer on trial delay; C.R.M. (NDPS) 800 of 2025; Kaligunj Police Station Case no. 1049 of 2024; Sections 21(c)/29 NDPS Act; Jagjiwan Sing Munda; Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.; decision dated 04.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected. Trial court requested to conclude trial preferably within ten months from the next date of hearing; petitioner at liberty to renew his bail prayer if there is no substantial progress in trial not attributable to him; both parties directed to communicate the order to the trial court at once. ¶16

Jagjiwan Sing Munda Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

04.09.2025 257. Bd. Ct.29 (Rejected)

¶2

C.R.M. (NDPS) 800 of 2025

¶3

In Re:- An application for Bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with NDPS Case No. 109 of 2024 arising out of Kaligunj Police Station Case no. 1049 of 2024 dated 28.11.2024 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of : Jagjiwan Sing Munda …. Petitioner.

¶6

Mrs. Karabi Roy …for the Petitioner

¶7

Ms. Baisali Basu Mr. Yaser Ammar Ismail ...for the State

¶8

Prosecution case is that 8.5 Kgs. of Opium was recovered from the exclusive possession of the present petitioner and the present petitioner is in custody for about 287 days.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the prosecution proposes to examine eight witnesses and till date they could not examine a single witness and as such there is hardly any chance of early conclusion of trial. Considering the period of incarceration suffered by the present petitioner he may be released on bail on any terms and conditions.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail prayer contending that commercial quantity of narcotic substance was recovered from his possession and that the charge-sheet was filed on 23^rd May, 2025 and the

¶11

¶12

charge was framed on 27.08.2025. It is expected that the trial would be concluded within a short span of time.

¶13

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 made by the present petitioner is considered and rejected.

¶14

However, the trial court is requested to expedite the trial and to make every endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within a period of ten months from the next date of hearing. If the petitioner finds no substantial progress in trial for which the delay in trial would not be attributable to the petitioner, he will be at liberty to pray for renewal of his bail prayer.

¶15

Both the parties are directed to communicate this order to the trial court at once.

¶16

Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 800 of 2025 is disposed of.

¶17

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

¶18

(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Jagjiwan Sing Munda v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagjiwan Sing Munda 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Mia Vs State of West Bengal

MD Ainal Sk @ Ainal Sk Vs State of West Bengal

Milon Roy @ Milan Ray and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Ekub Sekh Vs Union of India

Rohit @ Rohitosh Saha Vs State of West Bengal

Mukul Ali Mondal @ Mukul Ali Vs State of West Bengal