Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2213/2026 of HAREG MONDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 21 August 2026
Sl. No. 32 Ct. No. 446 SG [REJECTED] C. R. M. ( A ) 2213 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. 125/2023 dated 27.07.2023 under Sections 21(c)/22(c)/23(c)/27A of the
21.08.2026
Sl. No. 32
Ct. No. 446
SG
[REJECTED]
C. R. M. (A) 2213 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. 125/2023 dated 27.07.2023 under Sections 21(c)/22(c)/23(c)/27A of the NDPS Act.
And
In Re: Hareg Mondal.
… … Petitioner
Ms. Busra Khatun,
Mr. Md. Kashif Alam.
… … for the petitioner
Mr. Prinkar Ganguly,
Ms. T. Sengupta.
… … 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. Ms. Khatun, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the case. She submits that no contraband article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. She submits that, in such conspectus, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not warranted and that he may be extended the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS.
2. Mr. Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of the materials available therein. He submits that the petitioner is the owner of an auto-rickshaw and that the said auto-rickshaw was used for transporting the contraband articles. Therefore, according to him, it cannot be claimed that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged offence.
3. In reply, Ms. Khatun submits that the petitioner had handed over the auto-rickshaw to another person, authorising him to operate
2 the same on the route, and that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the recovery of any article from the auto-rickshaw while it was in the possession of the person to whom the petitioner had handed over the vehicle.
4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials on record. Undisputedly, the contraband articles were seized from an auto- rickshaw, and the present accused is the registered owner of the said vehicle. The petitioner could not place any material to show that the ownership of the auto-rickshaw was ever transferred to any other person. Therefore, taking note of this fact and upon perusal of the case diary, I am of the view that certain incriminating materials are available therein and that the petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In view thereof, it would not be apposite to extend the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)