Dismissed¶11

Manik Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

Criminal – Bail – NDPS Act

Calcutta HC19 Jan 2026CRM (NDPS)/1265/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail dismissed. CRM (NDPS) 1265 of 2025, decision dated 19.01.2026, Tirthankar Ghosh, J. Bail application by Manik Ghosh under S.439 CrPC / S.483 BNSS in NDPS case (Baranagar Police Station Case no. 328 of 2023, Ss.21(c)/25/27A/29 NDPS Act). 6000 bottles of phensedyl recovered (4000 from one vehicle, 2000 from another belonging to petitioner); petitioner is registered owner per Case Diary. Custody approx. 2 years 4 months. Earlier bail rejected by this Court and by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Trial commenced, PW4 evidence in progress. No change of circumstances; bail prayer dismissed; Special Court to adhere to trial-expedition direction. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no change of circumstances warranting release of the petitioner on bail. ¶11

Manik Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

19.01.2026 Court No.35. M/L. 39. Rakib (rejected)

¶2

CRM (NDPS) 1265 of 2025

¶3

In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Baranagar Police Station Case no. 328 of 2023 dated 21.05.2023 under Sections 21(c)/25/27A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. And

¶4

In the matter of : Manik Ghosh

¶5

……Petitioner. Mr. Litan Maitra Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bhattacharyya Ms. Rajnandini Das ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Joydeep Roy Mr. Dattatreya Dutta ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was shown arrested in connection with the instant case and is in custody for two years four months.

¶6

Learned advocate for the State submits that 6000 bottles of phensedyl were recovered, out of which 4000 bottles were recovered from one vehicle and 2000 bottles were recovered from another vehicle which belong to the present petitioner. State submits that the petitioner was in custody at the relevant time when the seizure was effected.

¶7

I have perused the Case Diary which reflects that the registered owner of the vehicle happens to be the present petitioner from where recovery has been made. Earlier application for bail was rejected by this Hon’ble Court as well

¶8

¶9

as the Hon’ble Apex Court. Witness Action has already commenced and evidence of PW4 is in progress.

¶10

There was already a direction of expediting the trial of the case, learned Special Court would adhere to the said direction.

¶11

For the present, I do not find any change of circumstances, accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in CRM (NDPS) 1265 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Manik Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Ghosh v. 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

Fulkumar Adhikary Vs the State of West Bengal

Obaidul Islam and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal

Muhuri Roy Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Raju Yadav Vs State of West Bengal

Jahangir Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

Riyajuddin Mondal Vs State of West Bengal