Shri.Manimohan Bepari v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM(NDPS)/2/2026 In Re: An application for bail under section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with PS Billiground under section 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 in Special NDPS Case No.10 of 2025 Shri Manimohan Bepari Vs.

The State Mr. D. Ilango ... for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar ... for the State April 13, 2026 [SR] Item No.1 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is already in custody for 320 days. Charge sheet has also been submitted. It is further submitted that the other three coaccused persons standing on similar footing have already been enlarged on bail. Moreover, learned counsel points out that as per the submission of learned Additional Public Prosecutor with regard to other co-accused persons, at the time of grant of bail, column no.10 meant for reasons/grounds for arrest left blank and there was no material case diary which could show that the ground of arrest has been intimated to the accused persons. 2.

Even from the arrest memo annexed to the bail application, I find that the column meant for recording the reasons/grounds of arrest had been kept blank, let alone the ground of arrest having been intimated to the petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities opposes the prayer for bail and submits that rigours of section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is squarely applicable to the present case and, as such, in view of the serious nature of the offence, the prayer for bail should be refused. 4.

However, I find substance in the bail application. 5.

First, since three other co-accused persons standing on similar footing as the petitioner have already been enlarged on bail, by applying the principles embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is entitled to seek similar relief. 6.

Secondly, the petitioner is already in custody for 320 days and the charge sheet has been filed.

7.

Thirdly, the column in the memo of arrest containing the grounds/reasons for the arrest has been left blank, thereby raising a serious prima facie doubt as to the validity of the arrest of the petitioner. Moreover, there is nothing on record to indicate that the grounds of arrest were intimated to the petitioner. Thus, by applying the provisions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the 1985 Act, I find that although the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is able to satisfy itself that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. 8.

Also, in terms of the unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India and

Another, cited by the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted bail under similar circumstances.

9.

Accordingly, CRM(NDPS)/2/2026 is allowed, thereby granting bail to the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom should be a local. The grant of bail shall be subject to the further conditions that the petitioner, during the trial, shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the said Court and shall not, in any manner, make any attempt to contact any of the witnesses and/or intimidate and/or influence them and/or tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.

( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )