19.06.2025 C.R.M. (NDPS) 543 of 2025 Item no. 15 Ct. No. 29 BD. (ALLOWED) In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with NDPS Case No. 84 of 2024 arising out of Kaliganj Police Station Case No. 809/2024 dated 17/09/2024 under sections 21(c)/22(c)/25/27A/28/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. In the matter of : Sanoj Kumar …. Petitioner. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya Mr. Priyankar Ganguly Mr. Anirban Kumar Banerjee …for the Petitioner. Mr. Subhamoy Bhatttacharya Ms. Atulya Sinha … for the State. Prosecution case is that on 16.09.2024 on the basis of credible source information 101.38 kg. of alprazolam and 210 Kgs. of acetic anhydride was recovered from the possession of three accused persons namely, Kabijul Mondal, Yogesh Kumar and Narendra Kumar and they were arrested from the spot. During investigation the name of the present petitioner transpires who is stated to be a student of Law College and a resident of Uttar Pradesh. Charge-sheet in this case has been submitted. Being aggrieved by the instant proceeding learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been arrested on the basis of co- accused statement which is inadmissible. Prosecution practically have been relied upon phone calls between 2 the petitioner and co- accused Kabijul Mondal prior to the date of alleged incident and prosecution further relied upon transaction of certain amount of money received by the petitioner from Kabijul Mondal on 14th September, 2024 in support of his arrest. Petitioner is completely innocent. The report of CFSL dated 29.10.2024 discloses that the presence of Alprazolam could not be ascertained in the sample. On the other hand, the CFSL report dated 24th January, 2025 categorically states that acetaminophen was detected on each of the exhibits which is not covered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance. Accordingly, no narcotic substance was recovered from the possession of any of the accused persons and according to the report the substance recovered from the possession of the principal accused persons is controlled substance and as such rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS, Act, do not attract against the present petitioner, who may be released on bail on any terms and conditions. Petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Foyjul Hoque @ Foyjul Haque –vs- State of West Bengal [CRM (NDPS) 79 of 2022], Md. Hamid Alam & Anr. –vs- State of West Bengal [CRM (NDPS) 675 of 2022] and Selim Sk. –vs- State of West Bengal [CRM (NDPS) 1375 of 2022 and also upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Lovepreet Singh 3 @ Lovely –vs- State of Punjab, in 2024 Law Suit (P & H) 2153. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the bail prayer made by the petitioner contending that the materials so far collected during investigation reveals that there was conspiracy in between the petitioner and the principal accused persons in respect of illicit possession of controlled substance. However, in his usual fairness he submits that since the seized materials is not a narcotic substance, the rigour of section 37 of NDPS Act, may not attract in respect of controlled substance but inference about making conspiracy in connection with the illicit possession of controlled substance cannot be ruled out. I have considered the submission made by both the parties. The name of the present petitioner transpires during investigation, from the statement of said co- accused Kabijul Mondal, though nothing has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. The chemical examination report dated 29.10.2024 reveals that the presence of alprozolam could not be ascertained in the sample. However, acetaminophen though detected in connection with each of the exhibits, is not covered under the narcotic substance but comes under controlled substance. 4 Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also considering the materials available in the case record it can be said that call details record may raise suspicion about petitioners complicity with the offence but such suspicion that has been raised by the prosecution from the CDR cannot be said to be grave suspicion in the absence of transcription of the CDR in connection with alleged calls made by the petitioner with the principal accused. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also the observations made by this High Court in this context as cited above by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein I am of the view that the controlled substance involved in connection with present case neither attracts rigour of section 37 of the NDPS Act, nor the case of conspiracy could be unearthed as yet against the present petitioner and as such the prayer for bail made by the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner namely, Sanoj Kumar, shall find bail of Rs. 20,000/- with two registered sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each, one of which must be local, subject to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar, Nadia, and also on condition that the petitioner shall not leave the geographical limit of the district Nadia, without the leave of the trial court except for the purpose of meeting investigation officer, 5 and shall report to the Investigation Officer once in a fortnight until further order. It is further ordered that the accused person shall not mis-use the liberty granted by this Court and he shall not tamper with any evidence orally or documentary during the trial. He shall not absent himself on any day during trial and shall not commit any offence while on bail. He shall give his cell phone number to the local police station and shall not change it without prior permission of the trial court and he shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without taking leave from the Court below. In case of violation of any of the conditions the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the bail without making any further reference to this Court. Be it mentioned, that anything said herein shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case by this Court. This application for bail being CRM (NDPS) 543 of 2025 is, thus, allowed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.) 6