Juyel Hoque @ Juyel Haque Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2026)

Juyel Hoque @ Juyel Haque Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner Juyel Hoque @ Juyel Haque released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each (one of whom must be local), to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special 3rd Court under NDPS Act, Malda; conditions: physical presence on each and every date fixed by the learned special court and no departure from the district of Malda without prior permission. Memo of Evidence submitted by the State to be kept with the record.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No.2081 of 2025 under Sections 21(c)/25/27A/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, should be released on bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Court's answer

Having considered the overall circumstances, the Court held that the present case is governed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in SLP(Crl.) No.13987 of 2025 (Sentu Seikh Versus State of West Bengal) and was inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each (one local), to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special 3rd Court under NDPS Act, Malda.

Key takeaways

Bail conditions imposed: if on bail, the petitioner shall be physically present on each and every date fixed by the learned special court and shall not leave the district of Malda without prior permission of the learned special court.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail under Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — NDPS Act, 1985, Sections 21(c)/25/27A/29 — Kaliachak Police Station Case No.2081 of 2025 dated 20.12.2025 — three recoveries of alleged brown sugar (1055 g, 416 g, 268 g); chemical examiner's report on the first seizure did not support contraband, while the 416 g and 268 g seizures were reflected as contraband — petitioner connected with the second seizure of 416 g (Diacetylmorphine and 6-Monoacetylmorphine), not with the third — custody of about 7 months — present case held governed by the Supreme Court judgment in SLP(Crl.) No.13987 of 2025 (Sentu Seikh v. State of West Bengal) — bail granted on bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each (one local), to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special 3rd Court under NDPS Act, Malda — conditions: attendance on every date fixed by the special court and no departure from Malda district without prior permission — CRM(NDPS) 1424 of 2026 allowed (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.).

D/L72

21.07.2026 Bpg.

Allowed

C.R.M. (NDPS) 1424 of 2026

In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No.2081 of 2025 dated 20.12.2025 under Sections 21(c)/25/27A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985;

Juyel Hoque @ Juyel Haque Versus

The State of West Bengal

Mr. Santanu Talukdar

Mr. Priyankar Ganguly

Mr. Amaan Deep Gupta

Ms. Pipasa Chakraborty.

…for the petitioner.

Mr. Sagar Saha Ms. Nayana Mukhopadhyay. …for the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner is in custody for 7 months. There have been three recoveries in the present case which are 1055 grams, 416 grams and 268 grams of contraband allegedly brown sugar. So far as the first seizure is concerned, the chemical examiner’s report do not support the prosecution case of being a contraband. However, so far as the seizure in respect of 416 grams and 268 grams are concerned, the same are contraband as is reflected from the chemical examiner’s report. The present petitioner is connected with the second seizure related to 416 grams of brown sugar. So far as the same is concerned, the chemical examiner’s report reflects presence of Diacetylmorphine and 6 Monoacetylmorphine. So far as the third seizure is concerned with which the petitioner is not

2

concerned, the seizure is Diacetylmorphine and

Monoacetylmorphine and codeine.

Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Having considered the overall circumstance and the present case is governed by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) No.13987 of 2025 (Sentu Seikh Versus State of West Bengal), I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner, namely, Juyel Hoque @ Juyel Haque shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special 3^rd Court, under NDPS Act, Malda. If on bail, the petitioner shall be physically present on each and every date fixed by the learned special court and shall not leave the district of Malda without prior permission of the learned special court.

Thus, CRM(NDPS) 1424 of 2026 is allowed.

Memo of Evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record.

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

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

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

3