1

CRM-M-28829-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-28829-2025

Reserved on: 05.08.2025

Pronounced on: 28.08.2025

Saqib Khan @ Billa ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab …Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: Mr. Sahil Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

90 22.06.2021 Amargarh, Malerkotla 22/29/61 & 85 of NDPS Act

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this

Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking

regular bail.

2. Per paragraph 14 of the bail petition, custody certificate dated 05.08.2025 as well as

para 12 of the status report, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1 236 17.12.2018 22/62/85 of NDPS Act City Khanna 2

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 22.06.2021

based on chance recovery, the Police seized 04 vials of Wincirex, 11 vials of Onerex and

250 loose tablets of Wallace from the petitioner’s possession. The Investigator claims to

have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC,

1973.

4. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody.

5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and

contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the

petitioner and their family. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would have no

objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including

that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which

provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any

2

CRM-M-28829-2025

2

offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the

intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act,

the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having

jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do

so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

REASONING:

7. As per paragraph 8(I) of the reply, 04 small sized bottles of Wincirex (100 ml of

oranged coloured liquid material),11 small bottles of Onerex (100 ml of orange coloured

liquid material) and 250 loose tablets of white colour (weight 473 mg/tablet) were

recovered from the petitioner and it constitutes an offense under the following provisions

and notifications:

Substance Name Codeine

Quantity detained 15 bottles of Cough Syrup (100 ml each)

Quantity type Commercial

Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report

Notification No. & date

Expert Committee Report dated 24.03.1995

& 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial)

Punishable U/s S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985

Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985

Notification No. & dated S.O.1055(E) 10/19/2001

Sr. No. 28

Common Name

(Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic

Substance (International non-proprietary

name (INN)

Codeine

Other non-proprietary name ******

Chemical Name 3-0-methylmorphine

Small Quantity < 10 Gram

Commercial Quantity > 1000 Gram

0

Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) &

2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985

3

CRM-M-28829-2025

3

Notification No. & dated

S.2(xvi)(c) NDPS Act,

1985, S.O.826(E)

11/14/1985

Sr. No. S.2(xvi)(c) & 35

Common Name

(Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic

Substance (International non-proprietary

name (INN)

CODEINE

Other non-proprietary name ******

Chemical Name

S2(xvi)(c) opium derivative means-

(c)phenanthrene alkaloids, namely,

morphine, codeine, thebaine and their salts.

Methyl morphine (commonly known as

'Codeine') and Ethyl morphine and their

salts (including Dionine), all dilutions and

preparations, except those which are

compounded with one or more other

ingredients

and containing not more than 100

milligrammes

of the drug per dosage unit and

with a concentration of not more than 2.5

per cent in undivided preparations and

which

have been established in therapeutic

practice.

Explanation.-- For the purposes of clauses

(v) (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the

percentages in the case of liquid

preparations shall be calculated on the basis

that

a preparation containing one per cent. of a

substance means a preparation in

which one gram of substance, if solid, or

one mililitre of substance, if liquid, is

contained in every one hundred mililitre of

the preparation and so on in

proportion for any greater or less

percentage:

Provided that the Central Government may,

having regard to the

developments in the field of methods of

calculating percentages in liquid

preparations prescribed, by rules, any other

basis which it may deem appropriate

for such calculation.

8. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of

S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin

4

CRM-M-28829-2025

4

conditions set forth by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

9. The petitioner is entitled to bail because, in somewhat similar cases where the

quantity involved was either greater than or close to the amount seized in the current FIR,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail after prolonged custody, as demonstrated by

the following judicial precedent:

1) In Chitta Biswas v. The State of West Bengal, CrA 245-2020, decided on

February 7, 2020, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

According to the prosecution, the appellant was found to be in

possession of narcotic substance i.e. 46 bottles of phensydryl cough

syrup containing codeine mixture above commercial quantity.

The appellant was arrested on 21.07.2018 and continues to be in

custody. It appears that out of 10 witnesses cited to be examined in

support of the case of prosecution four witnesses have already been

examined in the trial.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival

submissions and considering the facts and circumstances on record, in

our view, case for bail is made out.

2) In Hasanujjaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 29-11-2022, SLP

(Crl). No. 3221-2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[2]. The allegations are that when the police party intercepted the

petitioners along with another person riding on two motorcycles, they

were found in possession of codeine phosphate in 2 a consignment of

phensedyl bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115

bottles (100 ml. each) of phensedyl were recovered from the joint

possession of the petitioners. They were arrested on the spot and have

been in custody for more than one year and four months.

[3]. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

perused the record.

[4]. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been filed, though

the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus,

take some reasonable time, regardless of the direction issued by the

High Court to conclude the same within one year from the date of

framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any criminal

antecedents. There is, thus, substantial compliance of Section 37 of

the NDPS Act.

[5]. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views on the

merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on

bail subject to the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the

Trial Court.

[6]. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are found

involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other penal law, it

shall amount to misuse of the concession of bail granted to them

today, and in such a case, necessary consequences shall follow.

3) In Rajib Dey v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 20 Jan 2023, SLP (Crl)

8895-2022, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

5

CRM-M-28829-2025

5

[2]. The petitioner seeks his enlargement on regular bail in a Case

arising out of FIR No.341/2021, dated 06.12.2021, registered at

Tahirpur Police Station, District Nadia, West Bengal, under Section

21(c) of the NDPS Act and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. As per the

allegation, 30 bottles of phensedyl syrup containing codeine

phosphate were recovered from the petitioner. There are no criminal

antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since

18.02.2022. The charges have already been framed and the trial has

commenced but conclusion thereof will take some time.

[3]. Keeping in view all the attending circumstances but without

expressing any views on the merits of the case, the petitioner is

directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to

the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

4) In Ismaul Sk v. State of West Bengal, decided on 02 Jan 2024,

MANU/SCOR/00506/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

The appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 1 year and

10 months. The allegation is that 50 bottles containing Phensedyl

cough syrup were recovered from the appellant. Another issue is of

violation of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985.

Considering the facts of the case and particularly in view of the fact

that the trial has hardly made any progress in the sense that only one

prosecution witness has been partly examined, the appellant deserves

to be enlarged on bail.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal)No.14827/2023 Page 1 of 4 For

that purpose, the appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court

within a period of one week from today. The Trial Court shall enlarge

the appellant on bail on appropriate terms and conditions, including

the condition of regularly attending the Trial Court and cooperating

with the Trial Court for early disposal of the case. The appeal is

accordingly

allowed.

5) In Najrul Islam @ Najbul Hoque vs The State of West Bengal, decided on 03

Jan 2024, MANU/SCOR/00264/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was

arrested on 19.11.2022 in connection with the case arising out of FIR

No.477/2022 and the High Court rejected bail for the petitioner under

the impugned order on 06.07.2023. It is also pointed out that the 100

bottles of Phensedyt Syrup containing codiene phosphate were seized

in the case. Mr. Gupta would then advert to various bail orders passed

by this Court in cases with similar kind of contraband.

Admittedly, charges are yet to be framed and the trial is unlikely to

conclude in near future. The State counsel by way of explanation

submits that charges in this case could not be framed as one of the

accused is absconding.

Having regard to the circumstances here and the remote possibility of

the trial to conclude in near future and the incarceration of the

petitioner for over a year in connection with the contraband in

question, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner.

6

CRM-M-28829-2025

6

Accordingly, the petitioner (Najrul Islam Najbul Hoque) be released

on bail. Appropriate terms and conditions for bail is to be imposed by

the learned Trial Court.

6) In Nandalal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal vs The State of West Bengal, decided

on 03 Jan 2024, MANU/SCOR/00327/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[2]. The allegations are that the petitioner along with other accused

persons were found in possession of two plastic bags a cough

containing a total of 10,000 ml. of codeine phosphate narcotic

substance. It further syrup, which is notified as a narcotic substance. It

further appears from the contents of the FIR that the petitioner, who

was found in conscious possession of two white plastic containers

both of which contained 5,000 ml. each of the said liquid. He was

apprehended at the spot and is in custody since then.

[3]. The respondent State of West Bengal has filed its counter

affidavit, in which it is candidly acknowledged that though the

investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been filed, however,

the charges are yet to be framed. The prosecution proposes to examine

10 witnesses. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take considerable

time. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than one and a half

years.. He does not have any criminal antecedents.

[4]. According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

State, the narcotic substance allegedly recovered from the petitioner's

possession is of commercial quantity' and, as such, the rigors of

Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. We have considered the

submission.

[5]. Taking into consideration the period already undergone by the

petitioner in custody; the fact that he does not have any criminal

antecedents and also keeping in view that the prolonged incarceration

will not serve the cause of substantial justice, however, without

expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to

release the petitioner on bail at this state. The petitioner is,

accordingly, directed to be released on bail subject to the following

directions: …

7) In Subhashri Das @Rana @ Subhoshree v. The State of West Bengal,

decided on 05 Jan 2024, MANU/SCOR/02185/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court held

as under:-

The accusation is that the petitioner was found in possession of 60

bottles of Phensedyl Syrup (100 ml in each bottle). The charge sheet

was filed on 31.8.2022. The petitioner has been in custody since

12.3.2022. The application for bail filed by the petitioner was rejected

by the High Court and hence this special leave petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also counsel for the

Respondent-State. Taking note of the nature of the accusation and the

fact that the petitioner is in custody since 12.3.2022, we are of the

considered view that the petitioner can be ordered to released on bail

subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.

Ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall be produced before the Trial

Court forthwith for compliance with the order.”

8) In Indrajit Mondal @ Piglu v. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No(s).

8512-2023, decided on 25 Jan 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

7

CRM-M-28829-2025

7

[1]. The petitioner is in custody since 17 August 2021.

[2]. FIR No 355 of 2021 was registered at PS Murshidabad for

offences punishable

under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Durgs and Psychotropic

Substances Act 1985. The allegation is that the petitioner was found to

be in possession of ten litres of codeine phosphate.

[3]. We have heard Mr Praveen Swarup, counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner, and Mr Shreyas Awasthi, counsel appearing on

behalf of the State of West Bengal.

[4]. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal states

that the charges have been framed on 4 January 2024 and the

prosecution proposes to examine seventeen witnesses.

[5]. The petitioner is in custody for over two years and five months.

There is no prospect of the trial concluding on an early date. Hence,

we are of the view that it would be appropriate and proper to release

the petitioner on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be

imposed by the Special Court under NDPS Act-cum-ADJ, Second

Court Berhampore, Murshidabad in connection with NDPS Case No

166 of 2021. Ordered accordingly.

9) Santarul Islam v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 07-02-2024, SLP

(Crl) 13169-2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[2]. The petitioner is in custody for over 2 years since he was SLP

(Crl.) No(s).13169/2023 2 arrested on 12.01.2022. The charge-sheet in

the case was filed. Although 16 witnesses are cited in the charge-

sheet, the trial in the case is yet to commence.

[3]. Considering the above and looking at the nature of the contraband

(100 bottles of Phensedyl cough syrup) which is recovered from the

accused in FIR No.18/2022, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the

petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner (Santarul Islam @ Santa) be

released on bail in connection with the case arising out of Jalangi P.S.

Case No.18/2022.

10) In Saiful Islam v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 14 Feb 2024,

MANU/SCOR/60244/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[3]. The counsel would point out that the petitioner is in custody for

over two years since he was arrested on 08.01.2022. It is then

submitted SLP (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s).39202/2023 that the

contraband in question is 112 bottles of Phensedyl Syrup containing

codeine phosphate.

[4]. Since bail in similar circumstances was allowed by this Court,

following the orders enclosed to the petitioner, we deem it appropriate

to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner (Saiful Islam)

be released on bail in connection with the case arising out of FIR

No.16/2022. Appropriate bail condition be imposed by the learned

Trial Court.

11) In Debrata Mondal vs State of West Bengal, Decided on 15 Feb 2024,

MANU/SCOR/23288/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

8

CRM-M-28829-2025

8

[3]. Going by the allegations, 290 bottles of phensedyl syrup was

recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the co-accused.

The fact is that the co-accused was enlarged on bail by the High

Court. The petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2022. Taking into

account the aforesaid aspects, we are of the considered view that

the petitioner can be enlarged on bail, subject to the terms and

conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. Ordered accordingly.

In that regard, the petitioner shall be produced before the Trial

Court, forthwith.”

12) In Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Aliul vs The State of West Bengal,

MANU/SCOR/29168/2024, Decided on 26 Feb 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

holds,

Heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of the petition and

learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. The

appellant is in custody for approximately 1 year 4 months.

During the course of submission it was pointed out by the learned

counsel for the appellant that in another case the appellant has been

granted bail and therefore, similar relief may be granted by this Court

in this case.

The said submission is in response to the submission made by the

learned counsel for the respondent-State that this is not the only case

in which the appellant has been apprehended. She further submitted

that a huge quantity of codeine cough syrup was recovered from the

premises (Godown) which has been tenanted by the appellant herein.

Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made

out.

13) In SK. Nasiruddin @ Nasirddin SK. Vs State of West Bengal, decided on 06

Mar 2024, MANU/SCOR/34261/2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[4]. The appellant is charged for the offence(s) punishable under

Section 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and seeks his enlargement

on regular bail in a Case arising out of FIR No. 219 of 2022 dated

12.04.2022, registered at P.S. Raghunathganj, Jangipur Police District,

Murshidabad, West Bengal.

[5]. We note the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant

that the appellant was arrested on 12.04.2022 and since then he has

been in custody as an under trial prisoner. Even though charges have

been framed, trial is yet to begin but there is no likelihood of the trial

being taken up and completed within a short period of time. It is also

submitted that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedents. It

is also brought to our notice that the High Court while rejecting the

regular bail application had erroneously recorded that 50 ltrs. of

codeine phosphate was recovered from the appellant. This is perhaps a

mistake as recovery of only 5 ltrs of codeine phosphate which was

mentioned in the FIR.

[6]. Keeping in view all the attending circumstances but without

expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to

grant bail.

14) In Indadul Shah vs The State of West Bengal, decided on 20 Mar 2024,

MANU/SCOR/42687/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

9

CRM-M-28829-2025

9

The petitioner was arrested on 27.10.2022 in furtherance of an FIR

dated 27.10.2022 for offences punishable under Section 21(c)/29 of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He was

found in possession of 70 bottles of 100 ml. Phensedyl.

We notice from the record that charge-sheet has already been filed on

20.04.2023. There is no likelihood of the trial being taken up and

completed within a short period of time. There are no criminal

antecedents involving the petitioner herein.

Considering the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to grant bail.

The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with FIR

No. 334 of 2022 registered at Police Station Jalangi District

Murshidabad subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed

by the Trial Court.

15) In Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh vs Union of India, decided on 08 Apr

2024, MANU/SCOR/49775/2024 the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

The appellant Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh has been booked for

the crime registered pursuant to NCB Crime No. 07/NCB/KOL/2023

dated 09.02.2023 in respect of offence punishable under Sections 8 (c)

and 21 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (for short, the NDPS Act'). The appellant preferred an

application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 before the High Court seeking bail in the instant crime. The

High Court noted that the narcotic substance i.e. 415 bottles of

Phensedyl Syrup containing codeine phosphate which is above

commercial quantity was recovered from the appellant and in view of

the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the

application seeking bail was rejected.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the

appellant was not in conscious possession of the offending material

and that the prosecution has not complied with the requirements of the

NDPS Act. Further, the appellant is in jail for approximately one year

and two months and the trial is not likely to be completed in the near

future. Moreover, in certain identical cases, the accused have been

granted relief of bail by this Court. Therefore, the appellant may also

be granted bail during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the appellant also brought to our notice the fact

that on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed

and there are seven witnesses but the trial has not yet commenced.

However, learned ASG appearing for the respondent submitted that

this is not a fit case for grant of bail inasmuch as the quantity which

has been recovered is over and above the commercial quantity and it

has become a regular feature in that part of the country where

enormous amounts of Phensedyl Syrup containing codeine phosphate

is being recovered and, therefore, the application seeking bail may be

dismissed.

Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made

out.”

16) In Nijam Sheikh @ Md. Nijam SK @ MD Nizam SK v. The State of West

Bengal, decided on 15.04.2024, MANU/SCOR/52031/2024, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court holds,

10

CRM-M-28829-2025

10

The appellant Nizam Sheikh Md. Nijam Sk Md. Nizam Sk has been

booked for the crime registered pursuant to FIR No.90/22 dated

19.03.2022 lodged with Police Station Lalgola, District Murshidabad,

under Section 21(C)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act' for short). The High Court noted

that the narcotic substance i.e. 55 bottles of phensedyl syrup

containing codeine phosphate which is above commercial quantity

was recovered from the appellant and in view of the statutory

restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the application seeking

bail was rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the

respondent-State.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the

appellant was not in conscious possession of the offending material

and that the prosecution has not complied with the requirements of

Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. Further, the appellant is in jail since

28.03.2022 and the trial is not likely to be completed in the near

future. Therefore, the appellant may be granted bail during the

pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the Respondent-State submitted that recording of

evidence is to be commenced from tomorrow (i.e. 16.04.2024) and

there are only eight (08) witnesses as per the charge sheet and the trial

would be completed expeditiously. Therefore, at this stage, the

appellant need not be released on bail.

It was further submitted that the other seven (07) co-accused who

were granted bail, are not cooperating with the trial of the case and

therefore, this is not a fit case where bail may be granted to the

appellant herein.

Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made

out.”

17) In Mohidul Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 19 Apr 2024,

SLP (Crl) 15668- 2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[2]. Notice in this case was issued on 29.11.2023 with the following

order:

“xx xx xx The counsel submits that the petitioner is in

custody since 14.09.2022 for about 14 months. He then

points out that the contraband in question is Phensedyl

Syrup containing codeine phosphate and around 320

bottles of the syrup was recovered. The petitioner’s

counsel submits that notice in similar matter was issued on

13.10.2023 in the SLP (Crl.) Diary No.39063/2023. Issue

notice, returnable in three weeks. Dasti notice on the

Standing Counsel for the State, in addition.”

[3]. Having considered the duration of custody and the nature of

Contraband i.e., 320 bottles of Phensedyl Syrup seized from the

petitioner, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner –

Mohidul Sarkar in connection with FIR No. 224 of 2022 registered at

P.S. Sagarpara. The similar orders passed by this Court in SLP

(Criminal) No. 12911 of 2023 on 22.01.2024 and Criminal Appeal

No. 409 of 2024 on 25.01.2024 are also noted. Appropriate bail

conditions be imposed by the learned Special Court, Murshidabad. It

is ordered accordingly.

11

CRM-M-28829-2025

11

18) In Ripon Seikh v. State of West Bengal, decided on 19 Apr 2024,

MANU/SCOR/56447/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[4]. On the other hand, having regard to the duration of custody since

the petitioners were arrested on 23.11.2022 and the nature of

Contraband i.e., 73 bottles of Phensedyl Syrup containing Codeine

Phosphate recovered from the joint possession of the four accused, we

deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners Ripon Seikh, Sahin

Seikh and Babu Sk, in connection with FIR No. 310 of 2022

registered at P.S. Sagarparara, District Murshidabad. Appropriate bail

conditions be imposed by the learned Special Court, Murshidabad. It

is ordered accordingly.

19) In Saniya Bibi @ Soniya Bibi vs The State of West Bengal, decided on 26

Apr 2024, MANU/SCOR/56979/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[3]. Mr. Dibyadyuti Banerjee for the petitioner points out that the

Contraband in question is 105 bottles of Phensedyl Syrup and the

petitioner, who is a lady, is in custody for about 2 years 3 months

since he was arrested on 24.01.2022. That apart, the next date of trial

is fixed on 23.07.2024 and although 16 witnesses are cited, not a

single witness is examined so far.

[4]. Notice in this case was issued on 04.03.2024 and today the State

counsel prays for time to file counter affidavit.

[5]. Having considered the circumstances and more particularly the

duration of custody, the nature of the Contraband and the unlikely

possibility of the trial getting concluded on an early date, we deem it

appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner Saniya Bibi@ Soniya Bibi in

connection with the FIR No. 30 of 2022 dated 24.01.2022 registered

with P.S. Jalangi, District Murshidabad. It is ordered accordingly.

Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the learned trial court.

20) In Saddam Hossain vs State of West Bengal, decided on 03 May 2024,

MANU/SCOR/62782/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[2]. Notice in this case was issued on 08.12.2023, with the

towing order:-

“…The counsel refers to the FIR 37/2023 to point out that

72 bottles of 100 ml Phensedyl Syrup were seized and

since each 5 ml contains 10 mg of codiene phosphate, the

total quantity of codeine phosphate in the 72 bottles would

be around 14.4 grams. Such quantity is below the

stipulated commercial quantity in the Schedule to the

NDPS Act.

It is further pointed out that the petitioner has been in

custody for 10 months and charges are yet to be framed in

the matter.

Issue notice on the plea for bail, returnable in four weeks.

Dasti notice on the standing Counsel for the State, in addition."

[3]. Learned counsel for the state in his turn submits that evidence of

witnesses is scheduled to commence in July 2024.

[5]. Looking at the above facts and more particularly the nature of the

contraband and the long custody of the petitioner since 23.01.2023,

we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly the

petitioner (Saddam Hossain) be released on bail in connection with

the case arising out of FIR No.37/2023 registered at P.S. Raninagar,

12

CRM-M-28829-2025

12

District Murshidabad. Appropriate bail condition be imposed by the

learned Trial Court.”

21) Mithun SK v The State of West Bengal, decided on 17 May 2024,

MANU/SCOR/71191/2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

The appellants have been booked for the crime registered pursuant to

FIR No.158 of 2022 dated 26.07.2022 lodged with Police Station

Sagarpara, District Murshidabad, under Section 21(C)/29 of the NDPS

Act, 1985. The High Court noted that the narcotic substance i.e. 388

bottles of phensedyl syrup containing codeine phosphate which is

above commercial quantity was recovered from the appellants and in

view of the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,

the application seeking bail was rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

We have perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant(s) that the

appellants were not in conscious possession of the offending material

and that the prosecution has not complied with the requirements of

Section 52-A of the Act, 1985. Further, the appellants are in jail since

26 July 2022. Therefore, the appellants may be granted bail during the

pendency of the trial.

However, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

recovery has been made from the appellants herein.

Considering the above facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is

made out.

22) In Bijon SK @ Golam Murselim v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08

Jul 2024, SLP (Crl) 6046-2024, a three Bench of Supreme Court holds,

[1]. The petitioner has been denied bail in connection with FIR No

252 of 2022 dated 16 November 2022 lodged at PS Doulatabad,

District Murshidabad under Sections 21(c), 22 (c) and 29 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. The allegation

is that the petitioner was the owner of a truck which was alleged to be

used for the transport of 9075 bottles of Phensedyl.

[2]. The petitioner is in custody since 5 August 2023. Charges have

been framed. The prosecution proposes to examine 23 witnesses.

[3]. Considering the above facts and circumstances, an early

conclusion of the trial does not seem possible. Conscious as the Court

is of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, we are of the view

that the petitioner should be released on bail, subject to such terms

and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Court under NDPS

Act, Berhampore, Murshidabad. Accordingly, the petitioner is

directed to be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as

may be imposed by the Special Court under NDPS Act, Berhampore,

Murshidabad in NDPS Case No 226 of 2022.”

23) In Alamgir Sk. @ Alam Sk. @ Alomgir Sk. v. State of West Bengal, decided

on 12 Aug 2024, SLP (Crl.) 15176-2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act. It is alleged that 99 bottles of phensedyl syrup were recovered

13

CRM-M-28829-2025

13

from him. His bail application was dismissed by the High Court. He

has already undergone about 1 year and 10 months in jail.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

Under these circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that a

case of bail is made out for the petitioner.

24) In Dhananjoy Mondal v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 03 Sep 2024,

SLP (Crl.) 6526-2024,

[2]. The petitioner was arrested on 15.12.2022 and by now, he has

been in custody for 1 year 9 months. The Contraband in question is

100 bottles of Phensedyl Syrup.

[4]. Having considered the above and the fact that the petitioner was

granted bail in all the three cases mentioned in paragraph 7 of the

State’s counter affidavit and looking at the nature of the Contraband

in the present case, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the

petitioner – Dhananjoy Mondal. It is ordered accordingly.

Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the learned trial court.

25) In Yusuf SK v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 12-Nov-2024, SLP

(Crl) 5924-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

Against rejection of regular bail by the High Court and to seek bail,

the present Special Leave Petition has been filed. The petitioner is in

custody w.e.f. 18.12.2022 in connection with FIR No. 462/2022 under

Sections 21(C)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985 and Section 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

registered with Police Station Baishnabnagar, District Malda, West

Bengal.

[2]. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for

the parties, looking to the period of incarceration suffered by the

petitioner in a case of recovery of 295 bottles of phensedyl syrup, we

deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on

furnishing the suitable bail bonds and sureties and on such other terms

and conditions as may be deemed fit by the trial court.

26) In Merina Bibi v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 19-11-2024, SLP

(Crl) 13428-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has

been in custody for almost two years and the charges have been

framed and there are as many as thirteen witnesses to be examined;

that the trial would inevitably be delayed and therefore, this Court

may set aside the impugned order and grant relief of bail to the

appellant herein.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that as

many as seventy-two bottles of Phensedyl, each bottle being 100 ML

and one black coloured Redmi smart phone were recovered from the

appellant herein. The case against the appellant is clear and therefore a

direction may be issued to the Special Court to conclude the trial

expeditiously, as there is no merit in this appeal. Learned counsel for

the respondent also submitted that the next date of hearing before the

Trial Court is 19.12.2024.

14

CRM-M-28829-2025

14

Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made

out.

27) In Askan SK v. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 10417-2024,

decided on 11-12-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[1]. Against rejection of regular bail by the High Court and to seek

bail, the present special leave petition has been filed. The petitioner is

in custody with effect from 23.10.2023 in connection with FIR No

349/23 dated 23.10.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections

21(C)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act

registered with Police Station 2 Jalangi, Murshidabad, West Bengal.

[2]. As alleged, 188 bottles of phensedyl syrup containing codeine

phosphate were recovered from the petitioner. However, taking note

of the period of incarceration and the fact that trial has not yet begun,

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it

appropriate to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing the suitable

bail bonds and sureties and on such other terms and conditions as may

be deemed fit by the trial Court. Ordered accordingly.

28) In Merina Bibi v. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 1342822-2024,

decided on 19-11-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

The appellant herein has been booked for the crime registered

pursuant to FIR/Case No. 162/2023 dated 12.03.2023 lodged with

Police Station Domkal, Murshidabad, West Bengal, with respect to

offences punishable under Sections 21(C)/29 of Narcotics Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”)

An application seeking regular bail having been rejected by the High

Court vide impugned order dated 22.05.2024, the appellant has

preferred the instant appeal.

This Court vide its order dated 23.09.2024, issued notice in the instant

matter.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and

learned counsel for the State and perused the 1 material on record. The

appellant has been in custody for approximately one year and seven

months.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has

been in custody for almost two years and the charges have been

framed and there are as many as thirteen witnesses to be examined;

that the trial would inevitably be delayed and therefore, this Court

may set aside the impugned order and grant relief of bail to the

appellant herein.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that as

many as seventy-two bottles of Phensedyl, each bottle being 100 ML

and one black coloured Redmi smart phone were recovered from the

appellant herein. The case against the appellant is clear and therefore a

direction may be issued to the Special Court to conclude the trial

expeditiously, as there is no merit in this appeal. Learned counsel for

15

CRM-M-28829-2025

15

the respondent also submitted that the next date of hearing before the

Trial Court is 19.12.2024.

Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made

out.

29) In Multan Ali v. The State of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No(s). 7661/2025, decided on 17-07-2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[2]. Having considered the fact that 275 bottles of Phensedyl cough

syrup have been recovered from the custody of the present petitioner,

the period of incarceration which is more than two and half years and

even after direction to conclude the trial within a year by the order

impugned, the trial is not yet completed and in the facts and

circumstances, we are inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

10. Per the custody certificate dated 05.08.2025 the petitioner's custody in this FIR is of

01 year, 07 months & 12 days.

11. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation,

the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section

37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act

1

.

12. Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, without commenting on the

case's merits, and considering the petitioner’s pre-trial custody, the weight of the drugs,

coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, further pre-trial incarceration is not

justified at this stage. However, this order shall take effect from the time it is uploaded to

this Court's official webpage.

CONDITIONS:

13. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner

shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the

satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa

Magistrate or duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be

satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

14. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following

personal identification details:

1. AADHAR number

2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court

considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

3. Mobile number (If available)

4. E-Mail id (If available)

1

Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on

13 July 2023

16

CRM-M-28829-2025

16

15. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms.

16. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the

concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence,

influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any

witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and

circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the

Court.

17. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to

protect the members of society, detection squad and incapacitating the accused would be

one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal.

Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This

restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability

and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to

be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the

other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons,

firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority

within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance.

However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew

and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under

the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in society; it would also

restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.

18. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform

and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug

abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ

Petition (Criminal) No. 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge

bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court

must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be

proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions

must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so,

conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.”

19. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP

(Crl) 12225-2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying

that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail

granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the

necessary consequences.”

20. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner

repeats the offense where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or

17

CRM-M-28829-2025

17

commercial, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, or commits any non-bailable

offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the

State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the Special Judge/ Sessions Court

having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as

per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.

21. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's

merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

22. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [in CRA-D-123-2020,

decided on 05.08.2025], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in

paragraph 13, holds that “To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been

granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any

delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of

sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public

Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty

granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification,

must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished.”

23. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, are

disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA)

JUDGE

28.08.2025

anju rani

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes

Whether reportable: No.