26.03.2025 Item no. 34. Court No.29. AB (Rejected) CRM (NDPS) 282 of 2025 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 Dhubulia P. S. Case No. 636 of 2023 Dated 11.12.2023 under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act And In the matter of : Rama Ghosh & Others ……Petitioners. Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Sr. Adv, Md. Zeeshanuddin, Mr. M. H. Chowdhury, Ms. Chandrima Debnath ……for the Petitioners. Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta Ms. Sudeshna Das ……for the State. Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J. 1. Read order dated March 21, 2025. 2. Learned State Counsel has filed a status report. Let the same be kept with the records. 3. Referring to the material in the case diary, learned State Counsel tells us that Call Detail Records reveal that there was continuous exchange of calls between the present petitioners and the other accused persons, who may have been the mastermind behind the alleged offence. One of the other accused persons, one of the so- called big fishes, Amit Swarnakar was granted bail by this Court. However, he is not attending the Trial Court and warrant of arrest has been issued against him. Another accused person by the name of Dildar Guru is absconding. The present petitioners were apprehended from the place of seizure. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 2 were the driver and co-driver of the concerned truck respectively. Petitioner no.3 was the khalasi. 4. We find that prima facie there is sufficient incriminating evidence against the petitioners. The other accused persons, who may have been granted bail, were not present at the place of seizure. These petitioners were in charge and control of the truck which was carrying 198 kilograms of ganja. If convicted, the petitioners will have to face imprisonment for at least 10 years, which may extend upto 20 years. 5. In view of the huge quantity of contraband items being involved, keeping in mind the restrictions in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, we are not inclined to allow the petitioners’ prayer for bail, at this stage. 6. The prayer for bail is rejected. 7. CRM (NDPS) 282 of 2025 is dismissed. 8. However, considering the period of detention of the petitioners, we direct the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial to the fullest extent possible and if charge is framed, to conclude the trial on an early date, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if necessary, by fixing frequent schedules of 2/3 days each for examination of witnesses. 9. Parties to communicate this order to the learned Trial Court. 10. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.) 3