28.9.2026 32 SB Ct no. 5 Rejected Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri C.R.M. (NDPS) 448 of 2026 In Re:- An application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with C.R. (NDPS) case no. 109 of 2025 arising out of Kharibari Police Station case no. 233 of 2025 dated 23.8.2025 under Section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act 1985. And In the matter of : Md. Saiyad & Anr. …. Petitioners Ms. Rima Sarkar Ms. Suparna Paul Ms. Sidhi Sethia …for the Petitioners Mr. Janardhan Periwal Ms. Ruchika Agarwala Mr. Debabrata Rai ...for the State In support of the bail prayer, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the seizure list, it appears that the contraband substance was allegedly recovered from the possession of four accused persons, which is not feasible in view of the fact that alleged three packets containing contraband substances cannot be recovered from the possession of the four accused persons. The charge-sheet or the FIR does not disclose from whom what quantity of contraband was recovered and what is exact weight that was allegedly recovered from the each of accused including the present petitioner. She further submits that the result of examination shows on analysis that alleged contraband is 2 mixture of three items out of which heroin and Monoacetylmorphine are covered under the purview of NDPS Act but one element namely, Noscapine does not cover under the purview of NDPS Act, 1985. In this context, she relied upon the notification of the Ministry of Finance dated 23.12.2022 which talks about expeditious test and where the qualitative and quantitative test is required, it must be done expeditiously within a limit of 15 days. In this context, she also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sentu Seikh Vs. State of West Bengal dated 6.1.2026, where the contraband substance was mixed with three ingredients allegedly found by the examiner. She further relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Md. Sahadat Hossain, [CRM (NDPS) 570 of 2026] where this court granted bail to the petitioner and in that case and the chemical analysis findings was that the contraband substance was mixed with heroin and Monoacetylmorphine and noscapin. She further submits that the prosecution did not segregate the drugs from the plastic pouches in which drugs were kept and if weight of packet is deducted from the weight of the total consignment that was seized, the weight of the actual contraband could have been non-commercial and considering both the aspects she prayed for bail in favour of the petitioners. 3 Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail relying upon the judgment of Hira Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 20 SCC 272 and a coordinate bench judgment of this court passed on 15.6.2026, in CRM (NDPS) 269 of 2026 where the court rejected the bail prayer. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the both the parties, it appears that the Apex court in the case of Hira Singh & Anr. (supra) has clearly held in paragraph 10(3) of the judgment as follows: “10.3. At this stage, it is required to be noted that illicit drugs are seldom sold in a pure form. They are almost always adulterated or cut with other substance. Caffeine is mixed with heroin, it causes that heroin to vaporise at a lower rate. That could allow users to take the drug faster and get a big punch sooner. Aspirin, crushed tablets, they could have enough powder to amend reversal doses of drugs. Take the example of heroin. It is known as powerful and illegal street drug and opiate derived from morphine. This drug can easily be “cut” with a variety of different substances. This means that drug dealer will add other drugs or non-intoxicating substances to the drug so that they can sell more of it at a lesser expense to themselves. Brown sugar/smack is usually made available in powder form. The substances is only about 20% heroin. The heroin is mixed with other substances like chalk powder, zinc oxide, because of these, impurities in the drug, brown sugar is cheaper but more dangerous. These are only few examples to show and demonstrate that even mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance is more dangerous. Therefore, what is harmful or injurious is the entire mixture/tablets with neutral substance and narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. Therefore, if it is accepted that it is only the actual content by weight of offending drug which is relevant for the purpose of determining whether it would constitute small quantity or commercial quantity, in that case, the object and purpose of enactment of the NDPS Act would be frustrated. There may be few punishment for “commercial quantity. Certainly that would not have been the intention of the legislature.” (emphasis added) In the case of Hira Singh (supra), Supreme Court has taken into consideration the entire substance which was seized, which also includes the substance not come under the 4 purview of NDPS Act but which has been added to make the contraband substance cheaper or may allow the user to take the drug faster in order to get a big punch sooner or for some other dangerous purpose. Therefore, one thing is clear that whether such mixed quantity of contraband can be the ground for acquittal of the petitioner is certainly be a subject matter of trial. At this stage, what is relevant is that the quantity of narcotic substance recovered from the possession of the petitioners, whether comes within the definition of commercial quantity or not and thereby whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act attracts or not. Having considered the overall aspects of the matter, I find that on the basis of any speculative submissions made by the petitioners that if the amount of Noscapine is subtracted from the total quantity, then it would not come within the commercial quantity, is not acceptable at this stage for the purpose of bail hearing and therefore, the prayer for bail made by the petitioners is rejected as the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act attracts in the present case against the petitioners. However, it appears that the charge-sheet was submitted in this case on 31.7.2026 but the court below has not made charge hearing as yet. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody, the Trial court is requested to conclude the charge 5 hearing preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of the order and if required, the court below will propone the date. Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 448 of 2026 is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)