17.08.2026 Item no. 5. Court No.11. AB (Rejected) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRM (NDPS) 302 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 in connection with Kotwali (Coochbehar) Police Station Case No.980 of 2025 Dated 11.12.2025 under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act And In the matter of : Tapas Modak ……Petitioner. Ms. Rima Sarkar ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. APP Ms. Madhushri Dutta ……for the State. 1. About 26 kilograms of ganja was seized from the petitioner’s exclusive possession. The petitioner says that he is in custody for about eight months. He prays for bail. 2. The petitioner argues that it would appear from the certificate of the Magistrate issued under Section 52A of the NDPS Act that what the Magistrate found upon opening the packet was “leaf like substance identified as Marijuana plant (ganja) identified by the Investigating Officer”. The petitioner argues that the entire plant is not narcotic. It is not clear what the exact weight of the narcotic was. If it is below 20 kilograms, the restriction in Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply and he would be entitled to an order of bail. 2 3. I have also heard learned Counsel for the State. 4. Whether or not commercial quantity of contraband was seized from the petitioner’s possession and what the exact weight of the contraband was, is a matter of trial. It is not that the petitioner will be entitled as of right to an order of bail even if the actual weight of the contraband seized from him is a little below 20 kilograms. The technical argument advanced by the petitioner does not impress me at this stage. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mujabil Vs GNCT Delhi reported in 2026 SCC Online Del 1551 which in turn relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Ibrahim Khwaja Miya Sayyed Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 2023 SCC Online Bom 2873. Apart from the fact that those are not binding precedents, factually also those cases are distinguishable. 6. If the petitioner is convicted, he can face imprisonment upto 20 years. That substantial quantity of contraband item was seized from the petitioner seems to be clear. 7. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to allow the petitioner’s prayer for bail. 8. CRM (NDPS) 302 of 2026 is dismissed. (Arijit Banerjee, J.) 3