Calcutta High Court - Jalpaiguri
Md. Akruj Zaman @ Md. Arku Zaman vs Unknown on 9 January, 2026
09.01.2026
Court No.4
Item.1.
sg IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
CRM (NDPS) 489 of 2025
In the matter of : Md. Akruj Zaman @ Md. Arku Zaman
.... Petitioner.
Mr. Sourav Ganguly
Mr. Bibek Tarafder
Mr. Naser Ali
Mr. Gopal Roy
Ms. Rishita Chakraborty
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty
Mr. Subhasish Misra
...for the State.
1.The petitioner/accused has come up before this court praying for an order of bail on the ground of prolong incarceration violating Article 21 of the constitution of India, procedural irregularities including violation of section 52A of NDPS Act which entails the petitioner to set free and delay of 42 days delay in sending the seized contraband to FSL .
2. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously argued that the petitioner was arrested by the Matigara police station on 26.10.24 at 22:45 to 22:55 hrs at Tumbajote near Jora Bridge and after the arrest he was first produced first on 27.10.2024 before the Learned Court at Siliguri when he was 2 remanded to police custody .The Memorandum of arrest was found blank at serial no1 (e) & at serial no 2( c) so the date ,time and place of arrest and ground of arrest have not been informed to the petitioner's relatives. The personal search under section 50 of the NDPS Act was not complied in the search cum seizure procedure as the concerned officer was not a gazetted officer and also he was reached at the spot before the petitioner so he must be construed as a member of the raiding team. This procedure vitiates the trial and hence all the subsequent order of remand.
3. The learned advocate has relied upon the decision of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharastra and Anr 2025 SCC Online SC 2356 ,Surepally Srinivas vs the State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telengana ) 2025 INSC 414 ,Subhas Sil vs The STATE of West Bengal, State of Rajasthan vs Paranand and Anr (2014) 5 SCC 345. He further relied upon the unreported decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Hamidul Haque dated 23.12.25,Wasim Akhter dated 17.12.25 .
4. The Learned Prosecution on the other hand raised vehement objection and submits that the petitioner was unsuccessful in earlier occasion when also he raised the similar objection . The petitioner alongwith the other co-accused are engaged in the illegal business 3 since long . In order to buttress the claim of the petitioner the learned prosecution relied upon the decision of Bharat Aambale vs The State of Chhatishgarh 2025 INSC 78 paragraph 50 and submits in view of the nature of accusation his prayer should be rejected .
5. Heard the submissions. Perused the case Diary and the materials on records. 514 grams suspected to be Brown Sugar was seized from the petitioner which was later on from the Forensic result was found to be Diacectylmorphine (Heroin) ,6-Monoacteylmorphone ,Morphine -3acettate ,Acetylcodeine ,Morphine and codaine and is sufficiently more than commercial quantity and the punishment for which if proved is not less than 10 years and may extend to 20 years.
6. The mandate contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution in unambiguous and clearly provides that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as they can be and held after discussing the catena of judicial pronouncement that non supply of grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee prior to or immediately after arrest would not vitiate such arrest on the ground of non-compliance with the provision of section 50 of the Cr.P.C. Section 47 of BNSS speaks of communication of ground of arrest to the arrestee.
4
7. In the case of Bharat Aambale (supra) it was held what is required is only a substantial compliance of the procedure laid down under section 52 A of the NDPS Act and the standing orders /Rules framed thereunder and any discrepancy may lead to an adverse inference against the police and in the trial it is only after taking a cumulative view of the entire material on record including such discrepancies the court should either proceed to convict or acquit the accused .
8. In the case of Srinivas (supra) the Hon'ble Apex court consider both the case of Ambale and NCB vs Kasif regarding non compliance of section 52A of NDPS and set aside the order of conviction . Not only that the samples collected were sent to FSL after a considerable delay which is also contravention of the mandatory legal provision .The decision of Parmanand (Supra) relates to the violation of statutory provision for seizure of contraband to be witnessed by an independent Gazetted officer .All the judgement were relating to appeal filed against an order of conviction an independent Gazetted officer .All the judgement were relating to appeal filed against an order of conviction . 5
9. So far the compliance of section 50 of the NDPS Act in terms of Mihir Rajesh Shah it fuses the procedural and constitutional dimensions.
10. In view of the catena of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the speedy trial and period of detention undergone by the petitioner and on considering the aforesaid decisions this Court is inclined to allow the prayer.
11. The petitioner's bail/prayer stands allowed upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties of like amount one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the Special Court (under NDPS Act), Siliguri subject to the following conditions:-
a) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the local police station without the leave of the Court.
b) He must report to the I.O. of the case twice in a week or as and when called for till completion of investigation.
c) He will not tamper or threaten the witnesses or will not abscond and he will evade the trial.
12. It is made clear in violation of any of the condition as stated above the learned Court will be at liberty to take appropriate steps for cancellation of bail.
13. The application for bail is, thus, allowed.
14. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 6
15. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)