Bablu Shaw @ Mati Bablu @ Babu Shaw v. State Of West Bengal

29.04.2025 akb Sl. 38 Ct.29 Rejected CRM (NDPS) No. 366 of 2025 In re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Ghola Police Station Case No. 63 of 20922 dated 31.01.2022 under Section 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 corresponding to Ref. case No. N 09 of 2022.

And In re:

Bablu Shaw @ Mati Bablu @ Babu Shaw ... petitioner.

Ms. Mousumi Bhowal Mr. S. Ganguly Mr. Aman Gupta ...for the petitioner Mr. Iqbal Kabir Mr. Aritra Bhattacharya ...for the State It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody for about 67 days. Petitioner further submits that he has been arrested on the basis of the statement of a co-accused and that the examination of only three witnesses have been completed so far out of 11 witnesses and that it will take long time to conclude the trial and as such, he may be enlarged on bail on any terms and conditions.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail contending that the present petitioner is the main kingpin and that he has criminal antecedents and that six cases including the present one is pending against the present petitioner alleging similar type of offence and also offences under the IPC and Arms Act. He further submits that the petitioner was absconded immediate after occurrence in 2022 and on the strength of warrant of arrest, the police could apprehend him on 21.2.2025. He further submits that the charge has already been framed on 21.5.2023 and the prosecution proposed to examine 6 to 8 witnesses within a short span of time. He further submits that the delay in disposal of case occurred as the P.O. was on leave on four occasions.

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and also having gone through the statement of the independent witnesses, who have not yet been examined and that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and that he was absconding from the very beginning and that having criminal antecedent, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of committing similar type of offence by the petitioner and for which rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act attracts in the present case, the prayer for bail is considered and rejected.

However, the Court below is directed to expedite the hearing of the present proceeding and to make his best endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within a period of eight months from the next date. The application, being CRM (NDPS) 366 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of.

(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)