22.05.2025 (Ct. No. 03)

RS CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE CRR 215 of 2025 ABHINAV KUMAR -Vs-

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Mr. Sudip Guha, Adv.

Mr. Sandip Guha Roy, Adv.

Mr. Ananda Paul, Adv.

… for the petitioner Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP Mr. Sourav Ganguly, Adv.

… for the State

1. Mr. Sudip Guha, learned advocate, is appearing for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is appearing for the State.

3. The petitioner has filed the present application being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order no.18 dated 26.03.2025 and order no. 20 dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (under NDPS Act), 1st Court, Jalpaiguri wherein the learned Judge has initially granted interim bail after the statutory period subject to furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each and one of them must be local having landed property worth of Rs.50,00,000/- within the local limits of Jalpaiguri town. Subsequently, on the prayer made by the accused/petitioner for modification of the order dated 26.03.2025, the learned Judge, Special Court (under NDPS Act), 1st Court, Jalpaiguri has modified the order dated 26.03.2025 by enlarging the petitioner on interim bail of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each, one of whom must be local having landed property worth of Rs.35,00,000/-

with the Jalpaiguri town.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is entitled to get statutory bail as the prosecution has failed to submit charge sheet within the statutory period of time, the learned Judge has allowed interim bail to the petitioner on condition that out of two sureties, one must be local having landed property worth of Rs.50,00,000/- within Jalpaiguri town which was subsequently modified to Rs.

35,00,000/- within Jalpaiguri town.

5. Considering the above, this Court fails to understand for what purpose the learned Judge has directed the petitioner to furnish one surety who is having landed property of Rs.50,00,000/- or Rs.35,00,000/-. Once the Court finds that prosecution has failed to file charge sheet, the petitioner is entitled to get default bail and the Court has to offer the bail and at the time of offering the default bail there must not be any stringent condition on the petitioner/accused to which the accused/petitioner will not be in a position to comply with.

6. Accordingly, this Court finds that the condition imposed by the learned Judge, Special Court (under NDPS Act), 1st Court, Jalpaiguri by directing the petitioner to furnish one local surety having landed property worth of Rs.35,00,000/- within Jalpaiguri town is not in accordance with law and accordingly, the same is set aside.

7. The order passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (under NDPS Act), 1st Court, Jalpaiguri dated 09.04.2025 is modified to the extent that the petitioner/accused may find bail of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties, out of whom one must be local with the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.

8. If on bail, he shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of hearing. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of concerned Police Station without the leave of the Trial Court.

9. CRR 215 of 2025 is allowed.

(Krishna Rao, J.)