Calcutta High Court
CRM(NDPS)/1/2026 of AJIT MANDAL Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 23 March 2026
Court No.7 CHC (Rejected) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side
23.03.2026
Item No.4
Court No.7
CHC
(Rejected)
Calcutta High Court
In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
Appellate Side
CRM(NDPS) 1 of 2026
In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; in connection with Boxirhat Police Station Case No.05/2025 dated 03.01.2025
under Sections 21(c)/22(c)/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
And
In the matter of : Ajit Mandal
...… petitioner
Mr. Hillol Saha Podder, Advocate
…for the petitioner
Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, Ld. A.P.P.
Mr. Biswarup Roy, Advocate
…for the State
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.
1. Prayer for bail is founded on the ground that, videography of the entire incident was not done.
2. Court called upon the State to produce materials to establish that, videography of the arrest was made.
3. It transpires from the materials in the case diary that, videography of the arrest was commenced. However, the explanation is that, due to the low battery and insufficient light videography of the entire process was not done.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the State in his anxiety opened the envelope containing the Chip which contained the videography.
2
5. Such Chip be inserted in the same envelope and the envelope be stapled.
6. Since, videography of the arrest was made albeit, to a large extent, at this stage, it would be inappropriate to pronounce that, no videography at all took place. Arrest cannot be said to be bad in law on the basis of the materials available on record.
7. Commercial quantity of contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner.
8. Petitioner is unable to overcome the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
9. Prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
10. CRM (NDPS) 1 of 2026 is dismissed.
11. Investigating Officer is present in Court. Personal appearance of the Investigating Officer is dispensed with.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)