Calcutta High Court Declines Interim Bail In 28 NDPS Cases | Violation Of Article 22(1) Alone Not Enough | Offences Under NDPS Are ‘Crimes Against Society At Large And The Nation Itself’
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee dismissed interim bail petitions in 28 criminal revision applications under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to immediate release or interim bail solely on the ground of alleged non-communication of arrest grounds. It directed that each bail application be heard on its individual merits after the court’s summer recess.
The batch of applications before the Court involved multiple petitioners facing prosecution under the NDPS Act. The petitioners submitted that they were arrested without being informed of the grounds of arrest, either in writing or in a language they understood. Citing Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act, they sought either their immediate release or interim bail pending final adjudication of their bail pleas.
Reliance was placed by the petitioners on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, particularly paragraph 21. The petitioners argued that the Apex Court had held the communication of arrest grounds as a constitutional mandate, the violation of which rendered the arrest void and entitled the accused to immediate release. They also relied on earlier decisions in Harikishan v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 911), Madhu Limaye v. SDM Monghyr (1969) 1 SCC 292, Deepak Mahajan v. Directorate of Enforcement (1994) 3 SCC 440, and Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 676.
Further, petitioners contended that the arrest memos, often drafted in English, were not comprehensible to them. In many cases, no written communication of arrest grounds had allegedly been made. Several petitioners placed their thumb impressions on documents they could not read, and in numerous cases, the first remand orders were claimed to be silent on whether judicial magistrates had ensured compliance with Article 22(1).
Detailed factual assertions were provided across applications:
- In CRM (NDPS) 169/2025, arrest memos were in English with petitioners affixing thumb impressions, allegedly without understanding the content.
- In CRM (NDPS) 312/2025, no written communication of grounds of arrest was allegedly provided.
- Similar claims were advanced in CRM (NDPS) 490/2025, 423/2025, 528/2025, 521/2025, and several others—stating that grounds of arrest were either omitted entirely or not conveyed in vernacular language.
- CRM (NDPS) 235/2025 involved additional procedural objections, including arrest of a female accused between sunset and sunrise without prior judicial permission.
- CRM (NDPS) 295/2025 and others raised issues under Section 50A CrPC, alleging failure to inform relatives or local authorities.
In response, the State, represented by Advocate General Mr. Kishore Dutta and other counsel, submitted that procedural compliance had been met in each case. Arrest memos, videography, and notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were said to have been served, and entries in the case diaries supported compliance. A tabular summary was submitted detailing PS case numbers, seizure details, arrest documentation, and other procedural elements across 28 applications.
The State argued that technical irregularities, even if any, could not justify the grant of interim bail, particularly in light of the serious nature of offences and quantum of contraband recovered, which included heroin, ganja, brown sugar, cocaine, phensedyl, and codeine. Seizure quantities ranged from hundreds of grams to several kilograms and, in some instances, thousands of bottles of contraband substances.
The State further invoked precedents including:
- Narayana Swamy Rabishankar v. Assistant Director of Revenue (Intelligence) (2002) 8 SCC 7: The Supreme Court held that communication of arrest grounds was not vitiated where the arrest memo mentioned the offence and was acknowledged by the accused.
- Superintendent, NCB, Chennai v. R. Paulsamy (2000) 9 SCC 549: The Apex Court recorded strict bail limitations under Section 37 NDPS Act and held that alleged procedural violations of Sections 52 and 57 do not by themselves justify bail.
- Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab (2002) 8 SCC 7: The Court viewed allegations of non-disclosure of arrest grounds as technical in the context of conscious possession of contraband.
- Madan Lal v. State of H.P. (2003) 7 SCC 465: Conscious possession raised a presumption under Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act, placing the burden of disproving such possession on the accused.
It was further submitted that many of the investigations were complete or near completion, and some trials had already commenced. The State contended that granting interim bail would hamper ongoing proceedings and potentially lead to absconding.
The Court began by considering the constitutional foundation of the petitioners’ claim, referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana. It recorded that “the requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1)”.
The judgment further stated that this communication must be made in a manner that “imparts sufficient knowledge of the basic facts” and must be delivered “in the language which [the arrested person] understands.” The Court acknowledged that “non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights” and such a violation “vitiates the arrest of the accused.”
However, the Court noted that “it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial”, and added that “filing of charge sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1)”.
It recorded that the Supreme Court in the same case had held that “when a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused,” but clarified that the same judgment also noted that the question of rearrest upon release had been left open.
In evaluating the specific legal framework under the NDPS Act, the Court cited the preamble of the legislation, observing that it is “an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs” and “to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.”
Referring to the observations of the Supreme Court in Superintendent, NCB, Chennai v. R. Paulsamy, the Court recorded that “no accused can be released on bail when the application is opposed by the Public Prosecutor unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”
The Court further noted that “official acts have been regularly performed” must be presumed unless rebutted by evidence, and that such rebuttal “cannot be made merely by saying that no document has been produced... during bail stage.”
It also relied on Narayana Swamy Rabishankar v. Assistant Director of Revenue (Intelligence) to observe that “the arrest memo clearly indicates the offence stated to have been committed... Further, the record also shows that copy of the arrest memo... was received by the appellant.”
The Court observed that in Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, allegations of non-disclosure were treated as “technical in nature and without there being any material force in them” where the appellant was found to be in conscious possession of contraband.
Similarly, in Madan Lal v. State of H.P., it was noted that where possession is established, “the persons who claim that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it”, with Section 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act providing the basis for legal presumption.
In view of the above decisions, the Court recorded that “offences under NDPS Act are very serious in nature” and “any sort of indulgence against combatting such menace may have a detrimental effect in the society”.
It expressed that such offences “must not create any undue advantage or benefit to the persons accused”, and that “an offence under the NDPS Act cannot be compared with the ordinary offences committed against an individual.”
The Court concluded that “any other interpretation of stringent provisions including section 37 of NDPS Act may frustrate the very purpose and objectives of the Act.”
The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to release forthwith or to interim bail solely on the ground of alleged non-communication of arrest grounds.
It recorded that since the petitioners were not heard on merits in their respective bail applications; the 27 remaining applications would be de-tagged from CRM NDPS 169/2025. Each of these applications was directed to be listed for hearing on merit immediately after the court reopens following the summer vacation.
The Court concluded that the interim bail prayer and/or forthwith release prayer made on behalf of the petitioners in the 28 bail applications stood disposed of.
It further directed that urgent Xerox certified photocopies of the judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Soumyojit Das Mahapatra, Mr. Md. Golam Nure Imrohi, Mr. Topodip Gupta, Mr. Souvik Mitter, Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Mr. S.S. Saha, Ms. Salma Sultana Shah, Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Avik Gupta, Mr. Purbayan Chakraborty, Mr. Akash Ghosh, Md. Wasim Akram, Ms. Sabrina Parveen, Mr. Amit Roy, Mr. Avinaba Patra, Mr. Agnik Maulik, Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick, Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Mr. Kaustav Das
For the Respondents : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. Advocate General, Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Mr. Rahul Ganguly, Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ms. Debjani Sahu, Mr. Avishek Sinha, Mr. Akash Ganguly, Mr. Saryati Dutta, Ms. Mamata Jana, Mr. Joydeep Roy, Mr. Dipankar Paramanick, Ms. Afreen Parveen, Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya, Mr. Rajashree Tah, Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Ms. Trina Mitra, Mr. Parvez Anam, Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Ms. Madhumita Basak, Ms. Rita Dutta, Mr. Asraf Mondal, Mr. Sarjati Dutta, Mr. Sobhan Gani, Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, Mr. Sandip Kundu, Ms. Sudeshna Das, Ms. Puspita Saha
For the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB): Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, Sr. Adv. (DASG), Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu, Mr. Debapriya Samanta
Case Title: Ajijul Sk. and Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Batch Matters
Case Number: CRM (NDPS) 169 of 2025 & Batch
Bench: Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
[Read/Download order]
