28.9.2026 4 SB Ct no. 5 Rejected Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri C.R.M. (NDPS) 264 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 : Ratan Mahanta …. Petitioner Mr. Hillol Saha Poddar …for the Petitioner Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. APP Mr. Bijoy Bikram Das Ms. Madhushri Dutta ...for the State The allegation against the petitioner is that 255 grams of brown sugar was recovered from the exclusive possession of the four accused persons. It is submitted that after completion of investigation, police has submitted charge-sheet but the charge hearing has not yet taken place. In support of the bail prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.8.2025. From the written complaint, it is evident that police allegedly recovered contraband substance, which were kept in three plastic pouch but weight of contraband taken without excluding weight of plastic pouch. Now if the weight of packaging is deducted from the total weight of narcotic substance, it will come down much 2 below 250 grams and therefore, the quantity of the allegedly recovered contraband is non-commercial in nature in terms of quantity and on that ground, bail may be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail relying upon the judgment of Delhi High Court passed in Mustafa Vs. State of NCT of Delhi. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the argument made by the petitioner is based on speculation. However, I do not find anything in the record to suggest that if the weight in connection with the packaging is deducted, the total weight of contraband will be less than 250 grams. The fact remains in the present case is that the recovered contraband quantity comes under the commercial quantity though it may be by a narrow margin but at this stage of bail hearing it is insignificant and therefore, the rigours under Section 37 of the NDPS Act attracts, which provides twin conditions that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the alleged offence and he is not likely to commit any offence if released on bail. Therefore, I find that the petitioner has failed to overcome the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and as such, the prayer for bail made by the petitioner is rejected. 3 However, it appears that the charge-sheet was submitted in this case on 31.1.2026 but the court below has not make charge hearing as yet. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody, the Trial court is requested to conclude the charge hearing preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of the order and if required, the court below shall propone the date of charge hearing. Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 264 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.)