Calcutta High Court
CRM (NDPS)/1950/2026 of SUNIL PRASAD YADAV Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 16 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L.37. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (NDPS) 1950 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Muchipara Police Station case no. 30 of 2024 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.
16.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.37. Rakib (Rejected)
CRM (NDPS) 1950 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Muchipara Police Station case no. 30 of 2024 dated 06.03.2024 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act.
And In the matter of : Sunil Prasad Yadav.
……Petitioner. Mr. Tirtharaj Roy Mr. Asif Iqbal Mr. Arijit Bera
......for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, Ld. APP Ms. Arushi Rathore Mr. Rajesh Kr. Shah
……for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the chemical examiner’s report reflects that the percentage of codeine in the mixture which was subject matter of test could not be ascertained and to that effect there is specific assertion in the deposition of the chemical examiner. Petitioner is in custody for more than two years six months. There is issue relating to the seizures having been made. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the evidence of the case is in progress, there are antecedents of the present petitioner and so far as the present case is concerned, there are materials to confirm regarding the complicity of the present petitioner. Be that as it may, petitioner is in custody for more than two years six months. State would complete rest of the witnesses within a period of six months from date.
2 In the alternative, if a bail application is filed after the time period is over, learned Special Court would leniently consider such bail application of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations CRM (NDPS) 1950 of 2026 is dismissed. Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. 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.)