28. 12-08-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (ct. no.09) Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri debajyoti Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction (allowed) CRM (NDPS) 291 of 2026 In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Tufanganj Police Station Case No.374 of 2025 dated 17-06-2025 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. - A n d - In the matter of : Jahidul Ali & Anr. .... Petitioners. Mr. Kallol Acharjee, Adv., Mr. Prajnadeepta Roy, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv., Mr. Jaimallya Bhattacherya, Adv. … For the Petitioners. Mr. Avrojyoti Das, learned APP, Mr. Raj Kumar Mitra, Adv., Ms. Baishali Chakrabarty, Adv. … For the State. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are languishing in judicial custody for about 421 days. The ground of arrest was not duly communicated to the petitioners. Although the charge was framed on December 18, 2025, but since then, on several dates, the prosecution has failed to produce any witness. There is no chance of an early conclusion of the trial. The learned counsel has also submitted that the fundamental right of the petitioners as enshrined in Section 21 of the Constitution of India to get speedy justice is violated by the prosecution. In this regard, he has referred to the judgment reported in (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 713 (Union of India Vs. K. A. Najeeb). 2. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail vehemently. According to him, even there is no witness turned up on the appointed day of examination, that does not give a right to the accused to be enlarged on bail. In 2 this regard, the learned State counsel has referred to a judgment reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1058 (State of Punjab Vs. Balraj Singh alias Billa) and 2026 SCC Online SC 671 (State of Punjab Vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora) He has relied on paragraph 22 of the said judgment. In the present case, the petitioners are only in judicial custody for about 421 days. If he is found guilty, a maximum sentence of 20 years may be imposed upon them. Learned State counsel has further submitted that in view of these decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court should not enlarge the petitioners on bail. 3. I have gone through the materials on record. It appears that although the ground of arrest was said to have been duly communicated to the petitioners, but I find that was not done actually. According to the Investigating Officer or the Arresting Officer, the petitioners were arrested only because of proper investigation of the case. Is it correct narration of grounds of arrest? It has been specifically stated in the said arrest memo that the ground of arrest has been informed to the arrestee and the arrestee signed the arrest memo in English. But, in my view, the term ‘for proper investigation of the case’ is a vague term and not clear and specific one. It can not be said that Hon’ble Apex Court’s direction in this regard has been duly complied with. 4. However, I have found that the prosecution has miserably failed to produce a single witness till date. The charge was framed on December 18, 2025 and since then, several dates were fixed and they are – 19-02-2026, 20-02- 2026, 17-04-2026, 18-04-2026, 03-06-2026 and 22-07-2026. On those dates, although the accused were present before the learned trial Court through VC, not a single witness was produced by the prosecution. It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that if the accused who are charged for commission of offence punishable under appropriate section of the NDPS Act are found guilty, they will 3 have to undergo a maximum sentence of 20 years and in that event, mere 1 year 7 months in custody cannot be a ground for obtaining bail. It is further true that the learned court granting bail is to record certain conditions as reflected in Section 37 of The NDPS Act. It is very rightly pointed out from the side of the defence that if the accused are found guilty, a maximum sentence of 20 years may be imposed, but if the accused are not found guilty, then who will compensate the years of incarceration? However, it is absolutely right that Article 21 of the Constitution of India has recognized fundamental right of speedy trial. But so far as this case is concerned, I have found that the prosecution by taking advantage of the judgment reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1058 (supra), cannot claim that the action of the prosecution cannot be questioned even not a single witness is produced for a considerable period of time. I have also found that Article 21 of the Constitution of India overrides all consideration, even Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In this regard, I have taken note of the judgment reported in (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 713 (supra), which is a three Judge Bench judgment. 5. However, as the defence has been able to show, prima facie, that the ground of arrest was not duly communicated to the accused as per mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in Prabir Purkayastha, Pankaj Bansal and Vihan Kumar, I find that there is a serious dent in the foundation of prosecution case. Further, the prosecution does not show that the petitioners have any criminal antecedent and, therefore, in my view, the petitioners have got a lesson after an incarceration of more than one year, and in all probabilities, they would not commit such offence in near future. 6. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for bail on the following conditions, since it is 4 anybody’s guess when the trial of the case would be concluded. a) The petitioners, namely, Jahidul Ali and Jahidul Mandal, shall be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each, with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court (NDPS), Cooch Behar, and also on their written undertaking that they would not commit offences of like nature as alleged, in the near future. b) The petitioners shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date and/or as and when to be directed by the court. c) The petitioners shall not intimidate or threaten the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and shall not commit any cognizable offence in any manner whatsoever. d) The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of Tufanganj Police Station until further orders, except for the purpose of attending the court proceedings and shall meet the Officer-in-Charge/Inspector-in-Charge of the said police station once in a week, until further orders. 7. In the event the petitioners fail to adhere to any of the conditions stipulated above, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law. 8. The application for bail is, thus, allowed. 9. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 5 10. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)