1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM (NDPS)/8/2026 In RE: An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 09 of 2026, FIR No. 41 of 2026 dated 25.05.2026 under Section 20 (a) (i) of the NDPS Act, 1985 r.w.s 32 of A&N Excise Rules, 1934, Regulation III of 1876. And In the matter of Mangal Baral Vs. The State Mr. D. Ilango … for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar … for the State September 28, 2026 [AKB] Item No.6 1. This application is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused with a prayer for enlarging him on bail. 2. Mr. D. Ilango, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused, submits that the allegation against the petitioner is confined to the recovery of one Ganja plant from the backyard of his house. It is contended that the nature and extent of the alleged recovery, as reflected from the materials on record, do not justify the continued detention of the petitioner, particularly when the investigation has already been brought to an end. 3. Learned counsel further submits that, upon completion of the investigation, the investigating agency has already submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner on 29.06.2026. Thus, no further custodial interrogation of the 2 petitioner is necessary and the continued detention of the petitioner would serve no useful investigative purpose. 4. It is further submitted that there are certain prima facie discrepancies and irregularities in the procedure adopted by the prosecution in conducting the search and seizure. According to learned counsel, such procedural infirmities assume significance while considering the petitioner’s prayer for bail, particularly when the investigation has already been completed. 5. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate places reliance upon the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CRM (NDPS) No. 3 of 2023 [In Re: Rohit Kumar Bairagi], decided on 30.03.2023, and CRM No. 6 of 2021 [In the matter of: Dilip Singha], decided on 15.07.2021. It is submitted that the circumstances obtaining in the present case are substantially similar to those considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the aforesaid matters and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to consideration for bail on the principle of parity. 6. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the seized article was not immediately forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory after seizure. According to him, the seized material was retained for some period before being forwarded to the FSL for examination and such delay, according to the petitioner, constitutes a procedural infirmity requiring consideration at the stage of bail. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 3 7. Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar, learned Advocate appearing for the State, opposes the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the materials collected during investigation disclose sufficient incriminating circumstances against the petitioner. Learned State counsel further submits that the evidence-taking process has not yet commenced and, if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a possibility of his interfering with the prosecution evidence or otherwise causing prejudice to the further proceedings of the case. On such grounds, the State prays for rejection of the bail application. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by 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 one Ganja plant was allegedly recovered from the backyard of the house of the petitioner. At this stage, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or to arrive at any final conclusion regarding the legality or otherwise of the search and seizure. Nevertheless, the materials on record do indicate that the attention of this Court has been drawn to certain prima facie discrepancies in the procedure adopted by the prosecution in conducting the search and seizure. The effect and evidentiary significance of such discrepancies are matters which may appropriately be examined by the learned Trial Court at the stage of appreciation of evidence. 4 10. The submission regarding the delay in forwarding the seized article to the FSL also raises a matter which is capable of examination during trial. At the present stage, without expressing any final opinion on the merits or on the admissibility or evidentiary value of the seized material, such circumstance, considered along with the completion of investigation and the other prima-facie procedural discrepancies pointed out by the petitioner, may legitimately be taken into consideration for deciding the question of bail. 11. Having regard to the nature of the alleged recovery, the prima facie procedural discrepancies in the search and seizure, the delay alleged in forwarding the seized article to the FSL, the completion of investigation and submission of charge-sheet on 29.06.2026, the substantial period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, and the fact that the evidence- taking process has not yet commenced, this Court is of the considered view that further detention of the petitioner is not warranted at this stage. 12. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner/accused, namely Mangal Baral, is directed to be released on bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 09 of 2026, corresponding to FIR No. 41 of 2026 dated 25.05.2026, 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: 5 (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 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. 13. 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. 14. The Case Diary be returned. 15. Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 8 of 2026 is allowed. ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )