30.09.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.385 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (NDPS) 1568 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 2130 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025 under Sections 21(c)/27A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. And In Re : Md. Abdul Sektar and another ... Petitioners. Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sunayan Ghosh, Mr. Narattam Acharya, Mr. Avijit Chatterjee ... For the Petitioners. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, APP, Mr. Subrata Mukherjee ... For the State. Affidavit filed on behalf of the State be kept with the record. Petitioners pray for bail as they are in custody for about eight months and it has been contended that recovery from the present petitioners is 567 grams of Brown Sugar. Petitioners pray for applicability of the judgement of Sentu Seikh Vs. State of West Bengal in view of the quantification which has been made available in the chemical examiner’s report which contains Diacetylmorphine (Heroin), 6-Monoacetylmorphine, Morphine and Codeine. Petitioners emphasise that in the case of Sentu Seikh, there were recoveries of 1.298 kg., 514 grams and 263 grams of Heroin, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgement emphasised on the seizure in respect of the petitioner in 2 respect of 514 grams of Heroin being seized and thereafter observed that the seized substance being Morphine, Codeine and thebaine do not refer to the alleged seized substance being Heroin and as such, granted bail to Sentu Seikh. State in its affidavit has submitted that the total quantum of seizure in the present case is 10 kgs. of Brown Sugar. So far as the present accused/petitioners are concerned, 567 grams of Brown Sugar was recovered after the initial seizure of 7.863 kgs. of Brown Sugar on 30.12.2025 and 579 grams of Brown Sugar on 07.01.2026. There were later recoveries from other accused persons on 19.01.2026 (417 grams of Brown Sugar), on 04.02.2026 (290 grams of Brown Sugar) and on 12.02.2026 (284 grams of Brown Sugar). It has also been contended that so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, there are two criminal cases pending against him being Kaliachak P.S. Case No. 1053/2022 dated 18.09.2022 under Sections 448/506/195A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Kaliachak P.S. Case No. 117/2021 dated 02.02.2021 under Sections 341/326/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 is on bail in both the said cases. So far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, it has been contended that the State could not trace out any criminal antecedent. I have taken into account the submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I find that 10 kgs. of Brown Sugar in this case has been 3 recovered by the investigating agency. The provisions of Section 29 of the NDPS Act have been invoked by the State in the present case. So far as the applicability of Sentu Seikh’s judgment is concerned, it has been observed in the said judgement itself by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the observations and comments were restricted for the purposes of bail in the said case, consequently the judgement is in the factual circumstances of the said case and each case has to be taken into account on the factual foundation separately. Having considered the huge quantity of contraband seized in the present case, the provisions of Section 29 of the NDPS Act are attracted, which is invoked by the prosecution as a group of persons operating for dealing with narcotic substances and one of the petitioners being involved is having criminal antecedent, I am of the opinion that so far as the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are concerned, one of the clauses do refer that while on bail “will not commit any offence”. The conduct of the petitioners and the chain of circumstances placed by the State do not inspire confidence of the Court to hold that presently, if the persons are released on bail, there is no chance that they would not repeat the same offences. Accordingly, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected. The application for bail, being CRM (NDPS) 1568 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. 4 All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)