1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM(NDPS)/7/2026 In RE: An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 10 of 2026, FIR No. 42 of 2026 dated 26.05.2026 under Section 20 (b) (ii) B of the NDPS Act, 1985. And In the matter of Seken Dafadar Vs. The State Mr. D. Ilango … for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar … for the State September 28, 2026 [AKB] Item No.4 1. This application has been filed by the petitioner/accused with a prayer for enlarging him on bail. 2. Mr. Ilango, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner/accused, submits that the quantity of Cannabis/Ganja allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner is 1.032 kilograms, which falls within the category of intermediate quantity. It is, therefore, contended that the rigours and statutory embargo contained in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are not attracted to the present case and that the petitioner’s prayer for bail is accordingly required to be considered on the ordinary principles governing grant of bail. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged seizure was effected on 25.05.2026, whereas the seized contraband was 2 forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory only on 09.06.2026. According to him, the unexplained delay in forwarding the seized substance for forensic examination casts a doubt upon the proper preservation and safe custody of the seized contraband. 4. It is further argued that the seized contraband remained in the malkhana during the intervening period and, in the circumstances, the possibility of tampering, substitution or false implication of the petitioner cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. Learned counsel also points out certain alleged irregularities in the manner in which the search and seizure were conducted. In particular, it is submitted that no Gazetted Officer was present at the time of the search of the petitioner and that such non-compliance with the statutory safeguards prescribed under the NDPS Act materially affects the prosecution case. 5. It is also submitted that the investigation has already been concluded and the charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court. Consequently, custodial detention of the petitioner is no longer necessary for the purpose of investigation. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the petitioner be enlarged on bail upon such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper. 6. Per contra, Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar, learned advocate appearing for the State, opposes the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner relate to an offence under the NDPS Act and that the nature of the 3 accusation is serious. According to the learned State counsel, even assuming that there may have been certain procedural irregularities in the course of search and seizure, such irregularities, by themselves, cannot result in the entire prosecution case being discarded at the stage of consideration of bail. 7. Learned State counsel further submits that the seized contraband was duly forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory and that the FSL report has already been received. It is therefore contended that the prosecution has materials to substantiate the nature of the seized substance. It is also pointed out that the evidence-taking stage of the trial has not yet commenced. According to the learned State counsel, if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a possibility of his influencing witnesses or otherwise causing prejudice to the prosecution case. On such grounds, the State prays for rejection of the bail application. 8. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. It appears from the materials placed before this Court that 1.032 kilograms of Cannabis/Ganja was allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner/accused. The quantity so recovered falls within the category of intermediate quantity and does not constitute commercial quantity. Consequently, the statutory restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which specifically govern offences involving commercial quantity and the other offences expressly covered 4 by the provision, do not operate as an absolute bar to consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for bail in the present case. 10. At the stage of consideration of bail, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or record a definitive finding regarding the validity of the search and seizure. Nevertheless, the materials presently available do indicate that certain procedural aspects of the search and seizure require scrutiny at the appropriate stage of trial. The contention regarding the manner of search, including the alleged absence of a Gazetted Officer, as well as the circumstances surrounding the custody and forwarding of the seized contraband to the FSL, are matters which may have evidentiary relevance and can be appropriately considered by the learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence. 11. It is also of significance that the alleged seizure was made on 25.05.2026, whereas the seized substance was forwarded to the FSL on 09.06.2026. The effect of such interval, including whether the prosecution has satisfactorily accounted for the custody and integrity of the seized material during the intervening period, is essentially a matter of evidence. At the present stage, however, the existence of such an interval, coupled with the other procedural issues raised by the petitioner, constitutes a circumstance which cannot be altogether ignored while considering the question of bail. 12. Another relevant circumstance is that the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been 5 submitted. Thus, the continued custodial detention of the petitioner is no longer required for the purpose of facilitating investigation or enabling the investigating agency to collect further material. The apprehension expressed by the State regarding possible interference with the prosecution evidence can, if necessary, be addressed by imposing appropriate and stringent conditions upon the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the petitioner/accused, namely Seken Dafadar, is directed to be released on bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 10 of 2026, corresponding to FIR No. 42 of 2026 dated 26.05.2026, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayabunder, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall attend the concerned Police Station on every alternate day and shall cooperate with the investigation and/or any further proceeding as may be required in accordance with law; (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed for hearing, unless his personal appearance is specifically dispensed with by the learned Trial Court or his absence is occasioned by circumstances beyond his control; (iii) The petitioner shall not leave the Islands without obtaining prior permission from the learned Trial Court; (iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade 6 such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the investigating agency; and (v) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or otherwise obstruct the due course of the trial. 14. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined solely to the consideration of the petitioner's prayer for bail and shall not be construed as an expression of any final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case. 15. The Case Diary be returned. 16. Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 7 of 2026 is allowed. ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )