Thursday, 14, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kadhir Ibrahim @ Kadir Ibrahim vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 5269 Cal

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5269 Cal
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2021

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kadhir Ibrahim @ Kadir Ibrahim vs Unknown on 30 September, 2021

30.09.2021 Item no.49.

Court No.32.

AB (Rejected)

(Via Video Conference)

CRM No.4324 of 2021

In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with NDPS Case No.76 of 2020 under Sections 9A/25A/29 of the NDPS Act

And

In the matter of : Kadhir Ibrahim @ Kadir Ibrahim

......Petitioner.

Mr. Avik Ghatak, Mr. Sagnik Mukherjee ......for the Petitioner.

Mr. Y. J. Dastoor, ld. ASG, Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Ms. Jayita Dhar ......for the Union of India.

The petitioner is one of the accused persons in

connection with a case registered under Sections 9A/25A/29 of

the NDPS Act, 1985.

The petitioner says that there was no recovery of

contraband items from him. He is in custody for almost a year.

There is no incriminating material against him. It is anybody's

guess as to when the trial will commence or conclude. He

should be enlarged on bail.

We have considered the material on record. The item

that was recovered hidden inside a consignment of showpieces

meant for export to Australia is Pseudoephedrine. He says,

relying on two judgments of the Delhi High Court reported at

2013 SCC Online DEL 4608 (Niranjan Jayantilal Shah Vs

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) and 2015 SCC Online DEL

7830 (Manoj Kumar Vs Revenue Intelligence) that

Pseudoephedrine is not a narcotics substance. Hence, Section

37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted.

We have seen the material in the case diary. The NCB

says that the petitioner is one of the links in the chain of

persons, which runs this racket. Pseudoephedrine is a controlled

substance. Without licence, it cannot be sold.

Considering the nature of the allegation and the

debilitating effect that this kind of activities have on the

economy of our country and the prima facie incriminating

material against the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain

the petitioner's prayer for bail.

C.R.M. No.4324 of 2021 is, accordingly, dismissed.

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter