31.07.2026 Serial no. 7 Court no. 9 (Rejected) (S. A.) Calcutta High Court In The Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.R.M (NDPS) 405 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Siliguri STF Police Station Case No. 4 of 2025 dated 13.07.2025 under Sections 21(c)/27(A)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. -And- In the matter of : Mamun Ansari & Anr. … … Petitioners Mr. Pritam Majumder, Advocate Mr. Surajit Purkait, Advocate, Mr. Abdul Kasem Abdullah, Advocate Mr. Gakul Chandra Roy, Advocate … … For the Petitioners Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. APP. Mr. Bijay Bikram Das, Advocate Mr. Mayank Bhandari, Advocate … …For the State 1. Bail prayer of the petitioners is taken up for consideration. 2. It is submitted by learned Advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners have been in custody for more than one year. Investigation of the case has ended in charge-sheet. The petitioners are no longer required for the purpose of investigation. To such proposition learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon an order 2 passed by the, Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (CRL.) D. No. 34363 of 2026 (Raju Prasad versus State of Rajasthan) where the petitioner therein, was enlarged on bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. Petitioners pray for bail. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State submits that 640 grams and 1 kg. 321 grms. of contraband i.e. brown sugar was recovered from the possession of the petitioners and other accused persons. The petitioner was apprehended with huge quantity of contraband. 4. Learned Advocate for the State submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted. However, the case is fixed for appearance of the co-accused persons who were absconding. He opposes the prayer for bail. 5. It appears from the materials on record that a total of 3 kg. 163 grms. of contraband narcotic was seized from the possession of petitioner as well as the other accused persons, who were apprehended. The investigation of the case has ended in a charge-sheet against the petitioners. 6. In Raju Prasad (supra), it was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that; “8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and having taken note of the fact that the appellant is in incarceration for more than 11 months and 3 the trail is progressing, we see no reason as to why he should be kept in the continued confinement. To allay the apprehension of the prosecution, it would suffice to impose strict conditions for being enlarged on bail. 9. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Appellant is ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional trial court may deem fit to impose and also on the condition that appellant would appear before the jurisdictional trial court on all dates of hearing except when exempted for any specific reason.” 7. The aforesaid case of Raju Prasad (supra) was related to offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 326(3) and 61(2) (a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 8. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it involves the provision of the NDPS Act, 1995. In case of a proceeding under NDPS Act, the order granting bail should qualify the rigours of the provisions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not in a position to return a finding that the petitioners have been able to overcome the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 10. Prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected. 11. C.R.M. (NDPS) 405 of 2026 is dismissed. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)