21.08.2026 Supp No.1. Court No.11. AB Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRM (NDPS) 393 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 And In the matter of : Ajidul Miah @ Sura ……Petitioner. Mr. Sourav Ganguly, Ms. Madhushri Dutta, Ms. Rishita Chakraborty ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Jagriti Mishra, ld. AAAG, Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. APP, Ms. Rajyashree Ghosh ……for the State. 1. In this matter, I had granted bail yesterday (20.08.2026). I had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Khalid & Anr. Vs State of Telangana reported at (2024) 5 SCC 393. 2. This matter was mentioned today and has accordingly been placed in the supplementary list. 3. Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate for the petitioner, in his usual fairness, says that he did not refer to the decisions in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Kashif reported in (2024) 11 SCC 372 and Surepally Srinivas Vs State of AP reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 683. In Kashif, a two Judge Bench held, inter alia, that any lapse or delay in compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the 2 accused to be released on bail. It was further held that non compliance with the provisions of Section 52A is a mere procedural irregularity. However, in the subsequent decision of Surepally Srinivas (supra) after referring to Kashif, a two Judge Bench set aside the conviction on the ground of non compliance with the provisions of Section 52A. 4. In Md. Khalid (supra) a two Judge Bench held, inter alia, as follows : “26. Admittedly, no proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act were undertaken by the investigating officer PW 5 for preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in the presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the FSL report (Ext. P-11) is nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence. The accused A-3 and A-4 were not arrested at the spot.” 5. I, therefore, see that there is an apparent conflict between the decisions of two Benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of equal strength, in Mohammed Khalid (supra) and Kashif (supra). Kashif did not refer to Mohammed Khalid. 6. In such circumstances, going by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am required to follow Mohammed Khalid, which I have done. (Arijit Banerjee, J.) 3