Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3042/2026 of RAJESWAR BARMAN Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 28 September 2026
- 421 Court No.35 Rohan (Rejected) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.( A ) 3042 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Hili Police Station Case
28.09.2026
Sl. No. - 421
Court No.35
Rohan
(Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M.(A) 3042 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Hili Police Station Case No. 91 of 2025 dated 28.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/27A/28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
-And-
In the matter of: Rajeswar Barman
…Petitioner
Mr. Arnab Saha
Mr. Abhimanyu Bannerjee
Mr. Abdul Nooman
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Somnath Adhikary
Ms. Madhurai Sinha
…for the State
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been foisted with the present criminal case where there has been alleged recovery of 95 kgs of ganja only on the basis of statement of co-accused. There are hardly any materials to connect the present petitioner except some call detail records which were of an erstwhile date.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that prior to the date of search and seizure taking place, there were 319 calls between the present petitioner and the principal accused from whom recovery has been made.
2
3. Having considered the complicity of the present petitioner, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, namely, Rajeswar Barman is rejected.
5. With the aforesaid observation, C.R.M. (A) 3042 of 2026 is dismissed.
6. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record.
7. All parties shall act in terms of the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
8. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)