Merely Driving Car While Contraband Is Recovered From Passenger Doesn’t Constitute Possession: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail In NDPS Case
The accused approached the Calcutta High Court claiming that his involvement was restricted to driving the car from which the offending material was recovered.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Calcutta High Court (Port Blair Bench)
While granting bail in a case pertaining to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Calcutta High Court has held that merely driving a car, while the recovery was made from a passenger, does not constitute possession under the Act. The High Court also failed to find any direct involvement of the accused.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed by the accused, who claimed that his involvement was restricted to driving the car from which the offending material was recovered.
The Single Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held, “None of the seized articles were recovered from the person of the petitioner. The alleged involvement of the petitioner was only in driving the car. Ex facie, there is no direct involvement of the petitioner. Although the expression “possession” in respect of such offences may not be limited to recovery from the person of the accused, but at least it has to be established prima facie, for the rigours of Section 37 to apply, that the petitioner in some manner was in control of the seized material. Merely driving a car, while the recovery was made from the passenger, does not entail such a conclusion.”
“Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 5 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby granting bail to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner furnishes bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, subject to the satisfaction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair”, it added.
Advocate Manas Ajai Sonkar represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Sumit Kumar Karmakar represented the Respondent.
Arguments
It was the case of the petitioner that the only article seized from him was a mobile phone and not any contraband substance.
The respondent claimed that the petitioner was driving the car in which the contraband materials were recovered and it could be inferred that the petitioner was in constructive possession of the seized material.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the seizure list, the Bench found that the material allegedly recovered from the petitioner was only a mobile phone. The Bench noted that there was no direct involvement of the petitioner.
The Bench also took note of the fact that no past antecedent of crime of the petitioner was pointed out, and the petitioner was already in custody for about 196 days, whereas the chargesheet was filed on November 6, 2025, after completion of the investigation. “On the other hand, Section 37(1)(b) of 1985 Act cannot be read in isolation from the offences mentioned in the said Act. In the complete absence of any material to directly connect the petitioner to the alleged crime, at least till this stage, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused”, it added.
The Bench thus granted bail to the petitioner while imposing certain conditions upon him.
Cause Title: Saw Herald v. The State (Case No.: CRM(NDPS)/5/2026)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Manas Ajai Sonkar, Sumit Kumar Sakthi, Manojit Baraik
Respondent: Advocate Sumit Kumar Karmakar