Shri.Sanjeev Kumar Halder v. The State
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM(NDPS)/2/2025 In Re: An application for bail under section 483 of BNSS, 2023 in connection with Rangat Police Station, FIR No.78 of 2024 dated 01.09.2024 under sections 22(b)/22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, And In Re: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Halder Mr. D. Ilango ... for the petitioner Mr.Sumit Karmakar ... for the State February 05, 2025 [SR] Item No.1 1.
Learned advocate representing petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted bail since the recovery which is alleged to have been made from him is less than commercial quantity and charge sheet has already been filed on 14th December, 2024. During course of hearing, reliance is also placed on behalf of the petitioner on the order dated 11th November, 2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench whereby another bail application was allowed thereby one co-accused namely Ashok Kumar Maity was granted bail. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner may be treated equally. 2.
Learned advocate representing State has opposed the bail application on the ground that recovery of psychotropic substance has been made from the petitioner and the co-accused who was granted bail vide order dated 11th November, 2024 is not standing on the same footing.
3.
We have considered the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the case diary produced before us and examined other relevant materials. From the case diary, we have found
that the quantity of psychotropic substance which was alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is less than commercial quantity and charge sheet has already been filed on 14th December, 2024. It needs to be recorded herein that it is rightly pointed out by the learned advocate representing the State that the co-accused who was enlarged on bail vide order dated 11th November, 2024 is not standing on same footing since from that co-accused no recovery was made and implication was based on statement of another co-accused. However, if the present case is considered independently, we find that the alleged recovery made from the petitioner is less than commercial quantity as a result whereof rigor of section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. In addition thereto charge sheet has already been filed. 4.
In view of aforesaid situation, we are inclined to grant bail in favour of the petitioner.
5.
The petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date of trial and shall not intimidate the witnesses and tamper with evidence. 6.
The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court till conclusion of trial. Till conclusion of trial, the petitioner shall not leave Andaman and Nicobar Islands without permission of the Trial Court. In the event any of the aforesaid conditions are infringed, the bail shall be cancelled without reference to this Court.
7.
Case diary is returned to the learned advocate representing the State.
8.
The application being CRM (NDPS)/2/2025 is allowed and disposed of.
9.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate appearing for the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
( Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. ) ( Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. )