Mangal Chowdhury @ Mongal Choudhury v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC22 Sept 2026CRM (NDPS)/1994/2026

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

Court No.35. D/L. 434. Kausik (Allowed) CRM…

Case summary

From the record, as published by the registry

Court No.35. D/L. 434. Kausik (Allowed) CRM (NDPS) 1994 of 2026 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 English Bazar Police Station Case No. 353 of 2026 dated

Disposed 28 days after registration.

Filed as

ALLOWED2026

Mangal Chowdhury @ Mongal Choudhury Vs State of West Bengal — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

22.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 434. Kausik (Allowed)

¶2

CRM (NDPS) 1994 of 2026

¶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 English Bazar Police Station Case No. 353 of 2026 dated 11.03.2026 under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of : Mangal Chowdhury @ Mongal Choudhury

¶6

……Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Prabir Majumder Ms. Anindita Kundu

¶8

……for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, Ld. APP Ms. Piyali Chatterjee Ms. Nabanita Chatterjee

¶10

……for the State.

¶11

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits

¶12

that the accused persons from whom recovery of 15 bottles of Phensedyl were effected, they have been granted bail in the present case. So far as the petitioner is concerned, there has been no recovery from the present petitioner.

¶13

Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there are 7 criminal antecedents of the present petitioner.

¶14

I have considered the nature of antecedents and the case registered wherein there is one criminal case under the NDPS Act, rest are under different provisions of BNS.

¶15

¶16

Having regard to the merits of the present case which is concerned where the only evidence according to the State is statement of co-accused, I am of the opinion since the coaccused have already been granted bail from whom seizure has been effected, detention of the petitioner for more than 6 months is uncalled for.

¶17

Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed.

¶18

Accordingly, Petitioner, namely, Mangal Chowdhury @ Mongal Choudhury shall furnish bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of Learned Judge, under NDPS Act, 3^rd Court, Malda.

¶19

If on bail, the petitioner shall be physically present on each and every date fixed before the learned Trial Court and shall not leave the jurisdiction of District of Malda without the prior permission of the learned Special Court.

¶20

Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 1994 of 2026 is allowed .

¶21

Memo of Evidence submitted be kept with the record.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Mangal Chowdhury @ Mongal Choudhury v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

Case summary

Mangal Chowdhury @ Mongal Choudhury v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

Case summary

Case details

Similar cases