21.07.2026 Item No.1 Court No.9 CHC (Rejected) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side C.R.M. (NDPS) 636 of 2025 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in connection with C.R(N.D.P.S) Case No.71 of 2024 arising out of Pradhan Nagar Police Station Case No. 618 of 2024 dated 21.09.2024 under Sections 21(c)/22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. And In the matter of : Samir Raha ...… petitioner Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Sourav Lahiri, Advocate ...for the petitioner Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Gobinda Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Rajdeep Das, Advocate …for the Sate 1. Bail prayer of the petitioner is taken up for consideration. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in custody for 668 days. Learned advocate for the petitioner also submits that the raiding party received a source information about transportation of contraband articles, The information was entered in a General Diary. Permission was sought from the Inspector-in-Charge for conducting raid which he granted. It is also submitted that the selfsame Inspector-in-Charge has acted as a Gazetted Officer at the 2 time of search and seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner also submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, there has been non- compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon a judgment reported in CRA 90 of 2020 (Ishdan Seikh vs. Union of India). 4. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that commercial quantity of narcotic drugs was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned advocate for the State relies on various materials contained in the Case Diary. He submits that the FIR itself gives explanation for Inspector-in-Charge acting as a Gazetted Officer during search and seizure. 5. Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the materials in the Case Diary, it transpires that 30 bottles of codeine syrup were recovered from the possession of the accused. The investigation of the case has ended in a chargesheet under Sections 21(c)/22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested with contraband articles. 6. In Ishdan Seikh (supra), the Officer who was a member of the raiding party acted as Gazetted Officer. He had proceeded to conduct raid on the basis of source information. 3 7. However, in the instant case, information regarding transportation of narcotic was reported to the Inspector- in-Charge. From the materials in the First Information Report, it transpires that the matter was reported to the Executive Magistrate and after getting no response from the Executive Magistrate, the Officer conducting raid and requested the Inspector-in-Charge to act as a Gazetted Officer. There appears no violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances as noted above, commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused and the police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not in a position to hold that petitioner has been able to overcome the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 10. In such circumstances, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. 11. CRM(NDPS) 636 of 2025 is disposed of. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) 4