27.07.2026 Serial no. 27 BP Court no.9 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRM (NDPS) No. 396 of 2026 In re: An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Falakata Police Station Case No. 68 of 2026 dated 30.01.2026 under 21(c ) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. -And- In the matter of : Sri Sunil Mahato … … Petitioner Mr. Kalipada Das Ms. Saheli Roy Dakua … … For the Petitioner Mr. Janardan Periwal, Ld. JPP Mr. Abhilash Mittal … …For the State 1. The bail prayer of the petitioner is taken up for consideration. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is a porter by profession. He was endorsed with a packet which was supposed to be handed over to the consignee. However, nobody turned up for taking delivery of the consignment. He submits that the petitioner is totally innocent and committed no offence at 2 all. He has not been engaged in transportation or storage of narcotic contraband. The petitioner has been in custody for about seven months. He seeks bail. 3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the State submits that huge quantity of narcotic contraband in the nature of pyeevon spas plus capsules were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The entire process was video- graphed and the samples was sent for chemical examination. 4. Apparently, one carton containing 35 boxes of pyeevon spas plus capsules was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The prosecution case demonstrates that the police received information about the storage of the contraband articles at the house of the petitioner and thereafter, the raiding party visited the house of the petitioner wherefrom the aforesaid articles were recovered. The materials in the case diary goes to show that the petitioner although, claims to be a porter by profession and has stated that the consignment was for somebody else, however, he has not disclosed the name of the consignee. Seizure was made from the house of the petitioner and seizure list contains signature of the petitioner. 5. In such circumstances, I am not in a position to come to a conclusion that the petitioner has been able to overcome 3 the restrictions contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected. 6. CRM(NDPS) 396 of 2026 is dismissed. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)