29.07.2026 Item No.18 Court No.9 CHC (Rejected) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side C.R.M. (NDPS) 397 of 2026 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with NDPS Case No.26 of 2026 arising out of STF Siliguri Police Station Case No. 05 of 2026 dated 22.02.2026 under Sections 20(c)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read with Sections 303(2)/317(2) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. And In the matter of : Dilwar Hossain & Anr. ...… petitioners Ms. Srishti Sarker, Advocate Ms. Bipasha Mrug, Advocate ...for the petitioners Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Bijay Bikram Das, Advocate Mr. Debabrata Rai, Advocate …for the Sate 1. Prayer for bail of the petitioners is taken up for consideration. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that petitioners were not travelling in the alleged vehicle from where the seizure was made. She further submits that no contraband was recovered from the possession of the petitioners. On the proposition, learned advocate for the petitioners refers an order dated April 25, 2025 passed in CRM (NDPS) 151 of 2025 (In the matter of : Rohit Patel @ Rohit) as well as order dated April 22, 2024 passed in CRM (NDPS) 143 of 2024 (In the matter 2 of : Sonam Gurung) and on such ground that nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. She prays for bail 3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the State submits that the petitioners were travelling in an 18- wheeler truck in the driver’s cabin. Recovery was made from such cabin as well as from the conscious possession of the petitioners. Learned advocate for the State refers to materials in the Case Diary including the seizure list. He opposes the prayer for bail. 4. Report submitted on behalf of the State in terms fo the order dated July 11, 2026 be taken on record. 5. It transpires from the materials in the Case Diary that 1.064 kgs of contraband drug i.e., MDMA were recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners and another. Offending vehicle was also seized by the police. The seizure list goes to show that the petitioners put their signatures on such seizure list prepared at the time of search and seizure. He was informed of the grounds of arrest with necessary endorsement in the arrest memo. The contraband articles were recovered from the glove box inside the driver’s cabin of the vehicle where the petitioners were also present. Petitioners put their signatures on the seizure list. The First Information Report lodged by the Officer specifically stated that 3 recovery was made from conscious possession of the petitioners and another accused person. 6. Report submitted by State in terms of the order dated July 21, 2026 in respect of accused Tonik Mia states that accused Tonik Mia has been suffering from Right Facial Palsy and has been undergoing medical treatment thereof. 7. In Rohit Patel @ Rohit (supra) it was noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that- “7. In Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 1953 of 2014, decided on January 16, 2025, the Supreme Court held:- “21. Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an individual not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance but is also aware of its presence and nature. In other words, it requires both physical control and mental awareness. This concept has evolved primarily through judicial interpretation since the term “conscious possession” is not explicitly defined in the NDPS Act. This Court through various of its decisions has repeatedly underscored that possession under the NDPS Act should not only be physical but also conscious. Conscious possession implies that the person knew that he had the illicit drug or psychotropic substance in his control and had the intent or knowledge of its illegal nature.” 8. Similar view was taken in Sonam Gurung (supra) where the petitioner therein was enlarged on bail on the ground 4 that nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. 9. However in the facts and circumstances of the present case, petitioners were very much present inside the driver’s cabin and the contraband articles were recovered from their conscious possession. They put their signatures on the seizure list. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the commercial quantity of narcotics were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners, I am not in a position to return a finding that petitioners have been able to overcome the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 11. Consequently, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected. 12. CRM(NDPS) 397 of 2026 is dismissed. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)