51 13-02-2025 CRM (NDPS) 56 of 2025 (ct. no.29) S. De (Allowed) In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with NDPS Case No. 42 of 2020 arising out of Police Station STF Kolkata FIR No. 25 of 2020 dated 24.10.2020 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Phychotropic Substances Act 1985. - A n d - In the matter of : Mainuddin Mondal. .... Petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Lochan, … For the Petitioner. Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P. … For the State. Order dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J. 1. Status report filed by the State, be kept with the records. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that he is in custody for about four and half years. The trial has still not concluded. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to an order dated September 23, 2024, passed by us in CRM (NDPS) 1325 of 2024, whereby, while rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for bail, we had directed learned Trial Court to expedite the trial to the fullest extent and conclude the same on an early date and positively by the end of the year, if necessary by preponing the next date fixed for recording of evidence. We had passed the direction after noting the submission made on behalf of the learned State advocate that 3 more prosecution witnesses were to be examined and by the end of the year the trial would be concluded. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the aforesaid assurance of the State has turned out to be without substance. Signed By : SANDIP DE High Court of Calcutta 14 th of February 2025 05:52:47 PM 2 The direction of this Court for concluding the trial by the end of 2024, has also had no effect. 5. Learned State counsel tells us that after September 23, 2024, when the aforesaid direction was passed, two dates were fixed. On one date, there was a Bar resolution not to attend Court and, therefore, nothing happened. On the other occasion, learned defence counsel took time. 6. To our query as to whether on December 24, 2024, when the defence counsel obtained adjournment, the witness was present or not, no answer could be given. 7. Be that as it may, we find that the petitioner is in custody for an inordinately long period of time. The State says that 3 more witnesses will be examined. The same submission had been made about six months ago on September 23, 2024. Since that date, there has been no progress in the trial. 8. Therefore, solely on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without touching the merits of the case, we feel constrained to allow the petitioner’s prayer for bail. 9. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner, namely, Mainuddin Mondal shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/ with two sureties of Rs.12,500/- each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Learned Judge, Special Court (under the NDPS Act), Calcutta, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall remain within the municipal limits of Kolkata and shall meet the Officer-in-Charge/Inspector-in- Charge of the Hastings Police Station, once in every week until further orders. Signed By : SANDIP DE High Court of Calcutta 14 th of February 2025 05:52:47 PM 3 10. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever. 11. In the event the petitioner fails to adhere to any of the conditions stipulated above without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the petitioner’s interim bail in accordance with law without further reference to this court. 12. The application for bail is, thus, allowed. 13. 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. ) Signed By : SANDIP DE High Court of Calcutta 14 th of February 2025 05:52:47 PM