Dismissed¶16

Pijush Sarkar v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC21 Jan 2026CRM (NDPS)/1524/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pijush Sardar bail rejected; NDPS Act Sections 21(c)/29; rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act; recovery of 5000 bottles of phensedyl from conscious possession; Domkal PS Case No. 139 of 2025 dated 18.02.2025; NDPS Case No. 29 of 2025; CRM (NDPS) 1524 of 2025; bail under Section 439 CrPC / Section 483 BNSS 2023; custody eleven months and three days; charges framed; co-accused granted bail; trial expedited with priority to seizure list witnesses; Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; High Court Calcutta; 21.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

No bail relief; the prayer for bail was rejected and the application dismissed. The learned trial court was directed to expedite the trial and give priority to examination of the seizure list witnesses. ¶16

Pijush Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

21.01.2026

¶2

Serial no. 89 [G.S.D]

¶3

CRM (NDPS) 1524 of 2025

¶4

In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with NDPS Case No. 29 of 2025 arising out of Domkal PS Case No. 139 of 2025 dated 18.02.2025 u/s 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶5

-And-

¶6

In the matter of : Pijush Sardar

¶7

… Petitioner(s)

¶8

Mr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Anisur Rahman Mr. Dilwar Azad Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya Mr. Aritra Bhattacharya

¶9

… for the Petitioner(s) … for the State-respondent(s)

¶10

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner - who is the driver of the vehicle, is innocent of the charges and has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case. Learned advocate also submits that the petitioner is in custody for eleven months and three days.

¶11

Additionally, it has been submitted that since charges have been framed and a co-accused has also been granted bail, the petitioner may be granted the privilege of bail.

¶12

Learned advocate for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that from the

¶13

¶14

conscious possession of the present petitioner, 5000 bottles of phensedyl were recovered.

¶15

Having considered the quantum of seizure being recovered and the stage of the case, I am of the view that the rigors Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted, as such, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶16

Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected.

¶17

Accordingly, CRM(NDPS) 1524 of 2025 is dismissed . However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the process of trial and give priority for examination of the seizure list witnesses.

¶18

Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.

¶19

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

¶20

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

¶21

Pijush Sarkar v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pijush Sarkar 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

Gobinda Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

Jakir Sk Vs State of West Bengal

Nafisa Nesha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Guddu Sekh Vs State of West Bengal

Handicap Goutam @ Goutam Malakar @ Gautam Malakar Vs State of West Bengal

Sabiruddin Sk Vs State of West Bengal