Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2255/2026 of MITHU CHOUDHURY @ LOKO CHOUHAN @ LOKO CHOUDHURY @ MITHUN CHUDHURY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 17 August 2026
Sl. No.76 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. ( A ) 2255 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.263 of 2025 dated 20.12.2025 under sections 21(c)/ 22(c)/23(c)/27A/28/29 of the NDPS
17.08.2026
Sl. No.76
Ct. 446/tkm
C. R. M. (A) 2255 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.263 of 2025 dated 20.12.2025 under sections 21(c)/ 22(c)/23(c)/27A/28/29 of the NDPS Act
And
In Re: Mithu Rhoudhury @ Loko Chouhan @ Loko Choudury @
Mithun Chudhury
… … Petitioner
Mr. K Chaudhury
Mr. D Panda
… … for the petitioner
Ms. Priyanka Chandra
… … 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 for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of the statement of a co-accused person made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. He submits that such a confessional statement has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Hence, on the basis of such evidence, the personal liberty of a person cannot be curtailed. He prays for pre- arrest bail.
2. Learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and, referring to page 85 of the case diary, he submits that four cases under the NDPS Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are pending against the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. Although the present petitioner was implicated in this case on the basis of the confessional statement made by a co-accused person, the petitioner has
2 criminal antecedents, and four criminal cases, namely, Hili P.S. Case No. 153 of 2025, Hili P.S. Case No. 186 of 2025, Hili P.S. Case No. 259 of 2025 and Hili P.S. Case No. 177 of 2025, are still pending. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the materials in the present case, I am of the view that it would not be proper to extend the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)