CRM (A)/2122/2026 of RIMAN MONDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 20 August 2026

1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an FIR-named person, but his name transpires from the statement of a co-accused. He asserts that such statement, being a confessional statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. He submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to collect any incriminating material against the petitioner and that there is no evidence regarding any money trail or Call Detail Record involving the present petitioner and the accused person. No document has been produced to show that any bank transaction took place between the petitioner and the accused person at any point of time. No contraband article has been recovered from the petitioner. Charge-sheet has been submitted. In such conspectus, according to him, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. He places reliance upon a decision reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 (Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu) and upon an unreported decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM (A) 1640 of 2026. He submits that, having regard to the facts of the said case, where the accused person was implicated only on the basis of a confessional statement of a co-accused, the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS was extended in his favour.

2. Learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner is a part of a racket who was involved in such offence. In response to a query made from this court, she in her usual fairness submits that no electronic evidence or any bank transaction or any incriminating materials showing that the petitioner was involved in any money trail or any evidence showing his past criminal antecedents have been collected by the prosecution.

3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. Considering the nature of the offence, the fact that charge-sheet has been submitted, and the absence of any prayer by the concerned I.O. in the charge- sheet to keep open the option of filing a supplementary charge- sheet, I am of the view that the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act, Berhampore,

Murshidabad, and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner shall not interact with the victim, either directly or through electronic mode.

5. In the event the petitioner fails to appear before the trial court without any justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail automatically, without reference to this Court.

6. The application being CRM (A) 2122 of 2026 is disposed of.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)