Dismissed¶16

Pulok Mondal @ Pulak Mondal v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC2 Feb 2026CRM (NDPS)/1215/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM (NDPS) 1215 of 2025; Pulok Mondal @ Pulak Mondal; bail application; Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 20(b) NDPS Act 1985; Hogolberia Police Station Case No. 86 of 2024 dated 18.04.2024; earlier bail rejected CRM (NDPS) 1840 of 2024; charge sheet submitted; charges framed 04.03.2025; 12 of 16 witnesses examined; last witness January 2026; proper prosecution pace; no interference at belated stage; verdict by 30th May 2026; dismissed 02.02.2026; Tirthankar Ghosh, J.

What did the court decide?

None — bail application dismissed; Trial Court directed to pronounce the verdict by 30th May, 2026 and order to be communicated to the trial Public Prosecutor. ¶16

Pulok Mondal @ Pulak Mondal Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — bail application dismissed; Trial Court directed to pronounce the verdict by 30th May, 2026 and order to be communicated to the trial Public Prosecutor.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be granted bail at this belated stage of the trial, considering that the prosecution is maintaining a proper pace (charges framed 04.03.2025, 12 of 16 witnesses examined, last witness heard January 2026) and despite the contention that the adduced evidence creates no foundation for conviction. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Considering that a proper pace is being maintained by the State in prosecuting the case, the Court held that, so far as the merits are concerned, no interference is called for at this belated stage — i.e., no ground existed to release the petitioner on bail at this juncture.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed that the learned Trial Court would put in efforts to pronounce the verdict by 30th May, 2026.

¶15

Key takeaways

The Court directed the State to communicate the order to the learned Public Prosecutor conducting the trial, for informing the court in seisin of the case to take appropriate steps in consonance with the directions passed.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application (CRM (NDPS) 1215 of 2025) under S.483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / S.439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by Pulok Mondal @ Pulak Mondal in Hogolberia Police Station Case No. 86 of 2024 (dated 18.04.2024) under S.20(b), NDPS Act, 1985. An earlier bail application had been rejected in CRM (NDPS) 1840 of 2024. Charge sheet submitted; charges framed 04.03.2025; 12 of 16 proposed witnesses examined, the last in January 2026. Finding that the prosecution was maintaining a proper pace, the Court (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) observed that at this belated stage no interference with the merits was called for, dismissed the application on 02.02.2026, directed the Trial Court to put in efforts to pronounce the verdict by 30.05.2026, and ordered communication of the order to the Public Prosecutor conducting the trial.

¶1

02.02.2026 Court No.35. M/L. 23. Kausik (Rejected)

¶2

CRM (NDPS) 1215 of 2025

¶3

In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Hogolberia Police Station Case No. 86 of 2024 dated 18.04.2024 under Sections 20(b) of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of : Pulok Mondal @ Pulak Mondal

¶6

……Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Jyoti Agarwal

¶8

……for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Prasun Kumar Dutta, Ld. APP Ms. Sreetama Das

¶10

……for the State.

¶11

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the evidence which has been adduced in support of the case do not create a foundation or any scope for conviction. Unnecessarily the State is delaying the case.

¶12

Records reflect that earlier bail application of this petitioner was rejected in CRM (NDPS) 1840 of 2024. Report submitted by the State reflects that at the relevant stage, charge sheet was already submitted. Charges have been framed on 04.03.2025 and out of 16 witnesses proposed to be examined, till date 12 witnesses have already been examined.

¶13

Learned advocate for the State submits that last of the witness was examined in the month of January 2026.

¶14

¶15

Having considered that a proper pace is being maintained by the State for prosecution, so far as the merits of the case is concerned, at this belated stage no interference is called for. However, the learned Trial Court would put in efforts to pronounce the verdict by 30^th May, 2026.

¶16

Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 1215 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶17

State is directed to communicate this order to the learned Public Prosecutor conducting the trial for informing the Court in seisin of the case for taking appropriate steps in consonance with the directions passed above.

¶18

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶19

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

¶20

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Pulok Mondal @ Pulak Mondal v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pulok Mondal @ Pulak Mondal 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

Monoranjan Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

Sujoy Patra @ Bachha Vs State of West Bengal

Sariphul Sk. Vs State of West Bengal

Mithun Bhagat Vs the Union of India

Ashok Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal

Barnali Bag Vs Union of India