Rejjak Mandal v. State Of West Bengal

12.06.2026 Court No.4 Item No.7 AP/BP HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRM (NDPS) 284 of 2026 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Phansidewa Police Station Case No.11 of 2025 dated 07.01.2025 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of the NDPS Act.

And In the matter of: Rejjak Mandal ....Petitioner.

Mr. Arunava Paul ...For the Petitioner.

Mr. Jagriti Mishra, AAAG Mr. Debabrata Rai ...For the State.

1.

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that this petitioner is in custody since 7th January, 2025 that is nearly one and a half year. He further submits that at the time of arrest, he was not given the information as regard to his ground of arrest. He further brings to the notice of the Court that as regards to forensic test, the articles had been sent at a later stage than as has been prescribed by the Rules being the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. He has further submitted that the report of the FSL has not been received within the stipulated time. He has further submitted that the accused is not aware of the English language. He had signed on the memo of arrest in Bengali and the memo of arrest was not read over to him.

2.

Learned Assistant Additional Advocate General opposes the prayer for bail and brings to the notice of this Court that lastly on 17th March, 2026, prayer for bail of this accused petitioner has been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench. He further submits that charge-sheet has already been filed but charge has not been framed because the other co-accused is still absconding. 3.

On going through the case diary and considering the submissions of learned counsels, it transpires that 77.836 kg of Ganja has been recovered and from the submission of the learned counsels, it transpires that on earlier occasion, prayer for bail has been rejected and because of absconsion of the other co-accused, charge cannot be framed.

4.

Considering the quantum of substance recovered from this accused petitioner and also considering the fact that the other coaccused is absconding, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

5.

The application for bail is thus rejected.

6.

It is understandable that the present set of prosecution has taken guard recently. In such circumstance, prosecution is requested to take steps so that the trial can be commenced at the earliest.

7.

The case diary is returned to the learned Assistant Additional Advocate General in Court today.

8.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)