CRM (A)/2290/2026 of ANIMESH MONDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 31 August 2026

1. Mr. Brahma, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has been implicated in this case solely on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused person recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. He submits that such statement has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. He submits that, taking note of this well-settled proposition of law, the petitioner may be granted the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS.

2. Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the case diary and memorandum of evidence and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that, apart from the confessional statement, the prosecution has collected evidence relating to the petitioner’s past criminal antecedents. Referring to the portion of the memorandum of evidence, he submits that in Hogalberia P.S. Case No. 131/19 dated 04.08.2019, under Sections 302/201/34 IPC, the petitioner was involved in that offence, and he has also been involved in Hogalberia P.S. Case No. 92/2026 dated 19.04.2026, under Sections

2 310(4)/310(5) BNS. He submits that, considering such criminal antecedents, the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS cannot be extended in favour of the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials. Apart from confessional statement of co-accused person, materials relating to past criminal antecedents are available in the case diary against the present accused person. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit under Section 482 BNSS.

4. Accordingly, application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)