14.08.2026 Calcutta High Court Item No. 1 In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Ct. No. 37 Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction S.D. Appellate Side CRM (NDPS) 53 of 2026 In re: An application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with CR (NDPS) Case No. 67 of 2025 arising out of Matigara Police Station Case No. 324 of 2025 dated 20.5.2025 under Sections 21(c)/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. -And- In the matter of: Abdul Rauf Momin ….Petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. APP Mr. Anamitra Banerjee ..for the State Application for bail is taken up for consideration. Application for bail relates to Matigara Police Station Case No. 324 of 2025 dated May 20, 2025 under Section 21 (c)/2025 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On March 16, 2026, the application for bail was taken up for consideration. On March 17, 2026 finding that the petitioner was claiming parity with the co-accused who was enlarged on bail by the order dated December 17, 2025 passed in CRM (NDPS) 371 of 2025, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Siliguri Police Commissionerate, North Bengal to conduct an audit of all matters in which the bail was granted for non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act of 1985 for 2 the past one year within his jurisdiction. Commissioner of the Police was requested to take steps as against the Investigating Officer and the persons who arrested such accused in all those police cases who were enlarged on bail for non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act of 1985 since it infringe a fundamental right of the citizen of India and sounded in dereliction of duty. Further directions were issued as noted in the order dated March 17, 2026. The order dated March 17, 2026 required a report to be submitted to Court. Matter was posted on March 23, 2026. On March 23, 2026, learned Additional Advocate General appeared and sought time to submit report which was granted. On March 25, 2026, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted two reports which were taken on record. One report was by the Commissioner of Police, Siliguri Police Commissionerate dated March 25, 2026 and the other was by the learned Legal Remembrancer dated March 24, 2026. Essentially, both the reports stated that there were infractions and dereliction of duty on the part of the various persons. Reports stated that the audit directed by the Court to revealed 126 cases where on the ground of non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act of 1985, bail was granted to the accused. Matter was taken up subsequently from time to time. State submitted various reports. 3 All the reports say that there were bail orders were passed without requisite assistance to Court being rendered. In fact, reports go on to say that there are matters where the case diary contains compliances while such fact was not placed before the Court which granted the bail. Reports as submitted to Court make out a case for directing investigation by a suitable agency. It would be appropriate to refrain from dealing with the reports in details as it would tend to prejudice the investigations which is proposed to be directed. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that a detailed investigation is required by a suitable agency. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that Special Investigating Team should be constituted for the purpose of undertaking an effective investigation. He suggests that the investigation be made over to the Criminal Investigation Department or the Special Task force. In my view, materials placed on record require a thorough investigation by a Special Investigation Team. Orders of bail were obtained by suppressing material facts available in the case diary. Persons who were instrumental in ensuring that appropriate facts were not placed before the Court while considering the applications for bail needs to be proceeded 4 against. Issue of commission of cognizable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 exists. The areas where the concerned police station and the police stations where anomalies of 126 police cases were found are such that a law and order situation affecting entire country arises. The cases involve the Act of 1985. The geographical regions where the police stations are located are of same concern. Allowing a situation of this nature to continue will be inimical to the safety and security of the citizens of India. Reports of the State submitted from time to time disclose commission of cognizable offence. Police will, therefore, proceed to register an FIR with regard to the preliminary enquiry that was conducted in respect of the 126 police cases and commence investigations thereon. In such circumstances, it is appropriate that the Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department is requested to form a Special Investigation Team consisting of police personnel not below the rank of Superintendent of Police to investigate into the indentified 126 cases. The petitioner is not represented today. On a previous date, that is, March 17, 2026, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner expressed the desire of not pressing the prayer for bail for the petitioner. 5 Be that as it may, since the claim for parity of the petitioner is found to be not based on the actual materials in the case diary, the relief of bail cannot be granted. Prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. CRM (NDPS) 53 of 2026 is disposed of. (Debangsu Basak, J.) SUROJIT DAS Digitally signed by SUROJIT DAS Date: 2026.08.14 15:48:08 +05'30'