Calcutta High CourtCRM(A)/367/2025dismissed

Tahidul Miya@Tahejul Mia v. The State Of West Bengal

2025-06-16Hon'Ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh2 pages

16.06.2025 Item no. 35.

Court No.2.

Rakib In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction CRM (A) 367 of 2025 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Sitalkuchi Police Station Case No. 160 of 2025 Dated 09.04.2025 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

And In the matter of : Tahidul Miya @ Tahejul Mia ......Petitioner.

Ms. Riya Agarwal, Mr. Mantu Mandal.

......for the Petitioner.

Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, Ld. APP, Ms. Sukanya Adhikary.

......for the State.

Inadvertently, in the cause title the number of the police station case including the date has been incorrectly stated as 'Sitalkuchi Police Station case No. 160 of 2025 dated 08.01.2024', however, the FIR enclosed along with the application relate to 'Sitalkuchi Police Station case No. 160 of 2025 dated 09.04.2025'. This court cross-checked from the Case Diary and found the later number being 'Sitalkuchi Police Station case No. 160 of 2025 dated 09.04.2025' is the correct number of the case for which the Case Diary has been produced before this Court.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of statement of the co-accused. As such on any stringent conditions the liberty of the petitioner may not be curtailed.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has drawn the attention of the Court to the seizure list which reflects that the house where the activity of preparation of brown sugar was being carried out belonged to the present petitioner.

Having considered the complicity which is palpable on the face of the record, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. Accordingly, CRM (A) 367 of 2025 is dismissed. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)