Prosenjit Roy Alias Arghya v. State Of West Bengal

15.06.2026 Serial no. 26 [G.S.D] CRM (NDPS) 1167 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with ST 1 (11) 25, NDPS 52 of 2024 arising out of Survey Park Police Station Case No. 217 of 2024 dated 22.12.2024 u/s 22(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

-AndIn the matter of : Prosenjit Roy @ Arghya ... Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Chakraborty Mr. S. S. Saha ... for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Bhaskar Seth Mr. Amartya Mohan Bhattacharyya ... for the State-respondent(s) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 22nd December, 2024 and is in custody for one year six months. Learned advocate added that charges have been framed; the evidence of only two witnesses has been completed and the evidence of the three witnesses is in progress. The prosecution intends to examine 10 more witnesses. Therefore, according to the learned advocate, there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. As such, learned advocate prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Learned advocate for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that initially from the petitioner, 1.414 gm of MDMA was recovered.

Subsequently, on his statement, 16.34 gm of MDMA was recovered along with cocaine and ganja. It has also been submitted that there were transactions which reflect that other accused has paid a sum of Rs.7.71 lakh during a year to this petitioner for carrying out such illegal activities. According to the State, the petitioner is thickly connected with the other accused namely, Md. Parvez. I have taken into account the manner in which the accused along with the other have been involved in selling/distributing different types of contraband. There were issues relating to the subsequent seizures which were taken into account. But, so far as the money transaction between the present petitioner and Md. Parvez is concerned, no transparent clarification could be portrayed by the petitioner.

Having regard to the same and the quantity of contraband so recovered, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected.

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this court after the evidence of the seizure list witnesses is over.

Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) of is dismissed.

Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)