KALIACHAK PS CASE No. 2092 of 2025 · Calcutta High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 482
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 21(c), 27A, 29, 37
Judgment
Mr. Sourav Mukherjee, Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick. …for the petitioner. Mr. Arindam Sen, Mr. Mujibar Ali Naskar. ..for the State. Memo of Evidence filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that other than the statement of a co-accused, there is no other incriminating material available against the present petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner had fled away from the place of occurrence. Other than that, there are at least seven criminal cases that were started against the present petitioner, two of which are under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Considering the above, the other incriminating materials available in the case diary and the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. 2 The application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, rejected. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.