Calcutta High CourtCRM (NDPS)/1047/2025rejected

Shailendra Kumar Shah @ Golu v. State Of West Bengal

2025-09-25Hon'Ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee2 pages

25.9.2025 akb Sl. 180 Ct.29 Rejected CRM (NDPS) No. 1047 of 2025 In re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with T.R. Case No. 26 of 2024 arising out of Sankrail Police Station Case No. 953 of 2024 dated 11.12.2024 under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

And In re: Shailendra Kumar Shah @ Golu ... petitioner Md. Zohaib Rauf Mr. Ajitesh Pandey Mr. Zubeen Pandey ...for the petitioner Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld.P.P.

Mr. Antarikhya Basu Ms. M. Mahato ...for the State Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for about nine months and two cars were intercepted at Dhulagarh Toll Plaza, wherefrom one driver was apprehended and the driver of the second car was fled away. He further submits that the petitioner is only 20 years of age and he did not have any involvement with the alleged offence and as such he may be released on bail on any terms and conditions as the co-accused statement has no evidentiary value.

Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail prayer contending that the materials collected during investigation discloses that the petitioner has direct involvement with the alleged offence and he managed to fled away from the spot when search and seizure was made. He further submits that during investigation it further reveals that on 10.12.2024 when the raid was conducted the tower location of the petitioner's phone was at Dhulagarh Toll Plaza, Howrah under Sankrail Police Station and he also allegedly visited several times in Orissa and his tower location also reflected in CDR.

He further submits that he has made several phone calls with the coaccused persons which prima facie establishes his involvement with the alleged offence.

Having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State I find that there are reasons to believe from the materials that the petitioner has prima facie involvement with the alleged offence and as such, the prayer for bail made by the petitioner is considered and rejected.

The application, being CRM (NDPS) 1047 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.)