Calcutta High Court
CRM (NDPS)/1995/2026 of INDRAJIT MONDAL @ INDRAJIT MANDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 22 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L. 435. Kausik (Rejected) CRM (NDPS) 1995 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 269 of 2026 dated
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
22.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 435. Kausik (Rejected)
CRM (NDPS) 1995 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 269 of 2026 dated 22.02.2026 under Sections 21(c)/25/27A/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
And In the matter of : Indrajit Mondal @ Indrajit Mandal
……Petitioner.
Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee
Mrs. Suchismita Chakraborty
Mr. Debarnab Adhikary
……for the Petitioner.
Mr. Brajesh Jha Mr. Anindya Ghosh Mr. Pronojit Roy
……for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the recovery in the present case is 817 Gms. of Brown Sugar from a different person. So far as the complicity of the petitioner is concerned, there are no materials and the petitioner has been arrested on the basis of statement of co- accused. There are no quantitative assessment done properly so far as the recovered contraband is concerned and the charge sheet do not reflect that any service provider has been relied upon.
Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner was residing at the same
2 premises from where recovery has been effected. There are Call Detail Records to suggest complicity of the petitioner with the other accused and so far as the CDR is concerned, the same has been sent for verification. But as the report has not been received from the expert, the same has not been incorporated in the charge sheet. However, there are provisions to file supplementary charge sheet.
I have taken into account the overall circumstances of the present case including the period of detention and the issues on which the present petitioner has been detained. Having regard to the same, I am of the view that at this stage this is not a fit case for granting bail.
Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 1995 of 2026 is dismissed.
All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)