Calcutta High Court
CRM (NDPS)/1751/2025 of KAUSHIK BAIN Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 31 December 2025
Court No.6 S.Gayen/ Rohan IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.(NDPS) 1751 of 2025 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Nagerbazar Police Station Case No. 195 of 2025
31.12.2025
SL No.10
Court No.6
S.Gayen/
Rohan
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M.(NDPS) 1751 of 2025
In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Nagerbazar Police Station Case No. 195 of 2025 dated 30.08.2025 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of the NDPS Act;
-And-
In the matter of: Kaushik Bain
…Petitioner
Mr. Debasis Kar
Ms. Paramita Mukherjee
Mr. Arka Tilak Bhadra
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Bitasak Banerjee
Mr. Md. Ejaz Akhter
…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. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is further contended that no contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. He draws the attention of this Court to Page No. 15 of the Case Diary, which contains the seizure list. It is submitted that the petitioner was present at the spot and had duly affixed his signature on the said seizure list. The State further contends that the investigation is at a critical stage and
2 custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessitated, as he is one of the principal accused from whose possession Ganja was allegedly recovered.
3. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the materials placed on record, including the Case Diary, this Court finds that there is prima facie evidence suggesting the involvement of the petitioner. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.
4. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
5. CRM (NDPS) 1751 of 2025 is, thus, disposed of.
(Uday Kumar, J.)