Calcutta High Court

CRM(A)/633/2026 of JAYANTA BARMAN AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 5 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

No.07 Jalpaiguri 05.10.2026 sp CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

AD-8

Ct No.07

Jalpaiguri

05.10.2026

sp

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

CRM (A) 633 of 2026

In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

And

In the matter of: Jayanta Barman & Anr.

…. Petitioners.

Mr. Arjun Chowdhury,

Ms. Riya Agarwala.

…for the Petitioners.

Mr. Avrojyoti Das,

Mr. Reshab Kumar,

Mr. Shyamal Barman.

..for the State.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. Learned counsel for the applicants prays for accommodation. Accommodation was sought on the last date of the earlier circuit.

2. This Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer for such accommodation.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that in course of the meeting with the Investigating Officer, the accused had indicated that the contraband was procured from one Rahaman Medical at Boubazar, Dinhata, Cooch Behar. Further investigation revealed that Rahaman Medical and SM Medical Agency, Malda were not traceable. The licence to run a medical shop has since expired. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the applicants have not cooperated with the investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the state submits that there is a cartel, involving the applicants for transportation to huge quantity of drugs.

2 Commercial quantity was detected in the godown of the courier under possession of the Manager. When the narcotics were seized, the manager fled.

5. The conduct of the applicants does not inspire confidence in this Court that they would cooperate in the investigation. Custodial interrogation may be necessary.

6. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the application for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained.

7. Hence, CRM (A) 633 of 2026 is hereby dismissed.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead