NDPS bail application by an accused in custody for two years eight months, with only one witness examined. The State reported prosecution would examine eight witnesses; the court declined bail but directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
20.01.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 03. Rakib (rejected)
CRM (NDPS) 51 of 2026
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 Dum Dum Police Station case no. 221 of 2023 dated 10.05.2023 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
And
In the matter of : Gobinda Mondal.
……Petitioner. Mr. Debasis Kar Ms. Suhana Parvin ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Joydeep Roy Ms. Rajnandini Das ……for the State.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for two years eight months and only one witness out of the 18 witnesses cited by the prosecution has been examined. It has also been contended that lastly petitioner preferred a bail application in CRM (NDPS) 1709 of 2024 wherein there was a direction to conclude the trial by eight months.
Report has been submitted by the State which reflects that the cross-examination of PW1 started on 25.11.2024 and was partly done on behalf of the accused persons regularly and such PW1 was completed on 18.12.2025. As such the whole of the crossexamination of PW1 took more than 13 months time. However, the prosecution has submitted before this Court that they are going to examine only 8 witnesses out of the cited 18 witnesses.
If the accused persons stretched time that cannot be a ground for exercising right to speedy trial. All efforts be exhausted
2
by the learned trial Court to expedite the process of trial. Having regard to the same, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail given the set of circumstances presented before this Court.
Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 51 of 2026 is rejected.
Report so submitted by the State be kept with the record.
All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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 with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the NDPS bail applicant should be released on bail after over two years in custody with only one of eighteen witnesses examined.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Gobinda Mondal
State
Tirthankar Ghosh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
