Parimal Barman Vs the State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2026)

Parimal Barman Vs the State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to Parimal Barman on a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one local), to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court (NDPS), Cooch Behar, subject to conditions: (i) join the investigation as and when directed by the investigating officer; (ii) not threaten, intimidate or tamper with the complainant or members of his family; (iii) not leave the jurisdiction of the learned trial court until further orders; breach permits the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Parimal Barman, against whom no recovery was effected and whose alleged connection to the contraband emerges only through the testimony/evidence of co-accused Samim Haque, should be released on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023. +1 more

Court's answer

No recovery was effected from the present petitioner; the Court records this as admitted.

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner Parimal Barman is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one of whom must be local), to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court (NDPS), Cooch Behar, subject to conditions including joining the investigation as directed by the investigating officer, refraining from threatening, intimidating or tampering with the complainant or family members, and not leaving the jurisdiction of the learned trial court until further orders; violation entitles the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 — High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction), CRM (NDPS) 139 of 2026, decided 02.03.2026 by Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. Petitioner Parimal Barman sought bail in connection with Dinhata P.S. Case No. 535 of 2025 dated 03.11.2025 under Sections 20(C)/29/31 of the NDPS Act, 1985, wherein YABA tablets (90 grms) were recovered from co-accused Samim Haque. The Court noted that admittedly no recovery was effected from the petitioner, whose alleged involvement arose only from the testimony of Samim Haque, with no call detail records or other transactional evidence between them; co-accused Samit Das had already been admitted to bail on 27.02.2026 in CRM (NDPS) 142 of 2026. Bail allowed on a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two like sureties (one local), with conditions of joining investigation, non-tampering with the complainant/family, and remaining within the trial court's jurisdiction; breach attracts liberty to seek cancellation.

02.03.2026 Ct. No.6 D/L 92 Mujahid

In The High Court At Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction

CRM (NDPS) 139 of 2026

In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Dinhata P.S. Case No. 535 of 2025 dated 03.11.2025 under Sections 20(C)/29/31 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

And

In the matter of: Parimal Barman

….Petitioner

Mr. Sudip Guha Mr. Ananda Paul Ms. Ankita Nag

…for the petitioner

Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, Ld. APP Mr. Aniruddha Biswas

…for the State

1. The case of the prosecution is that YABA tablets 90 grms was recovered from the possession of Samim Haque, the name of the present petition and another co-accused Samit Das came in the testimony of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 2^nd February, 2026. Learned counsel submits that Samit Das has been admitted to bail by this court vide order dated 27^th February, 2026 in CRM (NDPS) 142 of 2026.

3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. However, he fairly submits that no recovery was effect from the petitioner.

4. The court considered the submissions. Admittedly, no recovery was effected from the present petitioner.

2

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that as per record available, it came in the evidence of Samim Haque that he purchased the articles from this present petitioner. However, there is no evidence of call details record or any other transactions between the petitioner and Samim Haque.

6. Thus, taking into the account and facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, namely, Parimal Barman be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1^st Court (NDPS), Cooch Behar, subjection to the condition that the petitioner join the investigation as when directed the investigating officer. The petitioner shall not threaten, intimidate or tamper the complainant or members of the family in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned trial court until further orders. In case the petitioner violates any such condition the prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.

7. The application for bail is allowed.

8. CRM (NDPS) 139 of 2026 stands disposed of.

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

(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)