Md Karimulla Sk @ Bapi Sk v. State Of West Bengal
22.7.2025 akb Sl. 44 Ct.29 Rejected CRM (NDPS) No. 629 of 2025 In re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 filed in connection with the Special Case No. 91 of 2023 arising out of Baishnabnagar Police Station Case No. 648 of 2023 dated 22.9.2023 under Section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. And In re: Md. Karimulla Sk @ Bapi Sk.
... petitioner Ms. Sabrina Khatun ...for the petitioner Mr. Joydeep Roy Ms. Pushpita Saha ...for the State Prosecution case is that 311 gms. of brown sugar was recovered from the exclusive possession of the petitioner. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for one year and ten months and the charge has been framed on 27th January, 2025 and the prosecution proposes to examine twelve witnesses but for the last six months they could not examine a single witness and as such nobody knows when the trial would be concluded and as such he may be released on bail on any terms and conditions.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail prayer contending that the bail prayer of the present petitioner was lastly rejected by this Court on 13th January, 2025. He further submits that out of three accused persons, two were absconding and warrant of proclamation and warrant of attachment was issued against them and on the strength of warrant of proclamation and attachment the other accused was arrested on 13th April, 2025 and the third accused is still absconding. He further submits that the delay in trial is attributable to the accused persons and as per the instruction the record has already been splited and recording of
evidence will start shortly.
Having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State and the materials placed before this Court it discloses that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act attracts in the present case in respect of the present petitioner and that the delay in trial is attributable to the accused persons, the prayer for bail is considered and rejected.
However, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and to make every endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest preferably within a period of ten months from the next date of hearing. If the petitioner finds no substantial progress of trial during this period for which delay would not be attributable to the accused persons, he will be at liberty to renew his bail prayer. Both parties are directed to inform the Court below.
The application, being CRM (NDPS) 629 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)