← Library
Calcutta High CourtCRM(A)/284/2025rejected

Bikash Oraon v. The State Of West Bengal

2025-04-25Hon'Ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

25.04.2025 (D/L 3) Ct. No.1 (Naba) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

CRM (A) 284 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Maynaguri P.S. Case No. 203 of 2024 dated 22.05.2024, subsequently Maynaguri Excise Circle, Seizer List No. SI's (OC) S.L. No. 24/24-25, dated 24.05.2024, under Sections 46A(c)/46A(cc)/46AA/52/61 of Bengal Excise Act, 1909, corresponding to C.R. No. 380 of 2024.

And In the matter of : Bikash Oraon ... Petitioner Mr. Supritam Nag, Ms. Trishna Ray, Ms. Angita Paul ... for the Petitioner Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, ld. APP, Mr. Aniruddha Biswas ... for the State 1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel.

2.

There is a recovery of huge quantity (1500 litres) of liquor from a godown said to be leased out to the present petitioner. The offences alleged are under Section 46A(c)/46A(cc)/46AA/52/61, including regarding recovery of spurious/contraband liquor.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the godown does not belong to the petitioner. It is owned

by Niranjan Roy. The lease/rent deed relied upon by the prosecution is a fake deed and cannot be relied upon. He further submits that at best it is recovery of some liquor which was intended for sale in other States.

4.

The learned State counsel on the other hand submits that during investigation, even the labels affixed on the bottles have been found to be fake and forged labels. One of the offences alleged is under Section 46AA regarding causing disability or death of human beings or likely to cause such consequences. The same is an offence which jeopardises public health and life. 5.

Considering the rival submissions, the nature of accusations, the material collected in the course of investigation, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6.

Accordingly, the prayer for the anticipatory bail is rejected.

7.

The application being CRM (A) 284 of 2025 is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)