25 09.09.2026 Ct. No. 10 Ashim (Chamber) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (NDPS) 439 of 2026 In Re : SUKUMAR SUTRADHAR …..Petitioner. Adv. Sourav Ganguly Adv. Sudhindra Das Adv. Rishita Chakraborty …. For the Petitioner. Ld. APP Avrojyoti Das Ld. Jr. PP Janardhan Periwal Adv. Bijay Bikram Das Adv. Urgen Lama Adv. Ruchika Agarwala Adv. Rajyashree Ghosh Adv. Baishali Chakraborty Adv. Atul Dong ……….for the State 1. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The petitioner is implicated under Sections 21(C)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in connection with New Jalpaiguri, Police Station Case No. 587 of 2025 dated 23/08/2025 corresponding to NDPS Case No. 641 of 2025. 3. The Petitioner was arrested on 23/08/2025 for conscious possession of contraband articles. Mr. Ganguly, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued on 2 the point that there is no quantitative analysis report of the drugs. It was argued that the petitioner was arrested for possession of suspected brown sugar weighing 264 grams. Forensic laboratory report mentioned that the mixture contained contraband article, namely, “Diacetylmorphine (Heroin), 6-Monoacetyl morphine, Morphine-3-Acetate & Acetylcodeine (all are covered under the purview NDPS Act, 1985).” According to Mr. Ganguly, there is no quantitative measurement of the article concerned for which it cannot be said whether the amount is of commercial quantity or not. In case, the contraband article is not of commercial quantity rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, shall not apply. Mr. Ganguly referred to three Judges Bench decisions of the Supreme Court of India in Bharat Chaudhary Vs. Union of India [(2021) 20 SCC 50] on the strength of which is submitted that in the absence any clarity on the quantitative analysis of samples, prosecution cannot be heard to say at the preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under NDPS Act, 1985. 4. The Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently objected the bail application on the ground that 264 3 grams of brown sugar was found from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Referring to three Judges Bench decisions in Hira Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2020) 20 SCC 272], the Learned Counsel submitted that illicit drugs are seldom in pure form. They are almost adulterated or cut with other substances. Various substances are mixed with heroin to give a big punch sooner. In this case, the observation of Supreme Court of India was referred to by the Learned Counsel that what is harmful or injurious is the entire mixture/tablets with neutral substance and narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. If it is accepted that only the actual content by weight, of offending drugs be relevant for the purpose of determining whether it would constitute small quantity or commercial quantity, the whole object and purpose of NDPS Act be frustrated. 5. I have heard rival submissions. 6. Bharat Chaudhary’s case (supra) was decided on certain facts and circumstances of the case. It was observed by the Supreme Court of India that there was absence of any psychotropic substance in the conscious possession of one of the accused and that reliance of the statement of co-accused should not be considered and 4 relied upon. In this case, test report shows some of the tablets were narcotic substances. 7. In this case the entire substances, recovered from the conscious possession, are covered under the purview of NDPS Act, 1985 though there is no specific mention of the quantity of each of them. It is not a case that some non-narcotic items are mixed with narcotic items. The whole seized material is narcotic substance. Individual quantity of each can be decided on trial. But there is no scope to conclude that there is mixture of contraband and non-contraband article on the basis of available record. 8. On perusal of Case Diary and other materials and after hearing the Learned Counsels, this Court is not inclined to allow the bail and accordingly the same stands rejected. 9. It is clarified that liberty is given to the petitioner to apply for bail before the Trial Court when the Trial Court may consider the same on its own merit without being influenced by this Order. 10. Case Diary be returned. 11. The application for bail, being CRM (NDPS) 439 of 2026, is thus, dismissed. 5 12. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Sugato Majumdar, J.)