The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to a man in a drug-related case, noting the absence of any direct connection between the accused and the alleged crime. The Court carefully examined the material on record and emphasized that mere presence at the scene of crime is not sufficient to prove guilt at this stage.
Background of the Case
The case, titled Saw Herald vs The State (CRM (NDPS) 5 of 2026), came up before the High Court at its Circuit Bench in Port Blair on April 24, 2026.
The petitioner was arrested in connection with an alleged recovery of contraband from a vehicle. According to the prosecution, the accused was driving the car from which the illegal substance was seized. The vehicle, it was pointed out, belonged to the petitioner’s father.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Upholds Acquittal in 2002 Vadodara Riot Murder Case, Cites Weak Evidence
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused had no direct involvement in the alleged crime. It was submitted that the only item recovered from him was a mobile phone, and no contraband substance was found in his possession. Further, none of the co-accused had named him during the investigation.
The defence also highlighted that the petitioner had already spent about 196 days in custody, had no prior criminal record, and that despite 29 witnesses being listed, none had been examined so far.
After hearing both sides, the Court closely examined the seizure list and the nature of allegations.
“The only article seized from the petitioner was a mobile phone,”
the Court noted, pointing out that no incriminating substance was recovered from his person.
The bench further observed,
“None of the seized articles were recovered from the person of the petitioner. The alleged involvement… was only in driving the car.”
Addressing the prosecution’s argument of “constructive possession” (a legal concept where a person may be considered in control of an item even if it is not physically with them), the Court clarified that such a conclusion cannot be drawn lightly.
“Merely driving a car, while the recovery was made from the passenger, does not entail such a conclusion,” the bench said.
The Court also considered the delay in trial proceedings. Despite the filing of the chargesheet in November 2025, no witnesses had been examined, raising concerns about the timeline for completion of the trial.
The prosecution relied on Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes strict conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
However, the Court held that these stringent provisions cannot be applied in isolation. It emphasized that there must be at least a prima facie (initial) link between the accused and the offence.
“In the complete absence of any material to directly connect the petitioner to the alleged crime… the benefit of doubt should go to the accused,” the Court observed.
Taking into account the lack of direct evidence, absence of criminal antecedents, prolonged custody, and delay in trial, the Court concluded that the petitioner had made out a case for bail.
The bench stated that there were
“reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application.
The petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the same amount. The Court also imposed conditions, including:
- The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of North and Middle Andaman District without prior permission
- He must report to the local police station once every fortnight
- He shall not contact or influence witnesses or tamper with evidence
Case Details
Case Title: Saw Herald vs The State
Case Number: CRM (NDPS) 5 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Decision Date: April 24, 2026
