Calcutta High CourtCRM(A)/605/2025rejected

Sapikul Miya v. The State Of West Bengal

2025-11-19Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction 19.11.2025 7(DL) Ct. No.3 srm (Rejected) C.R.M. (A) 605 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with NDPS Case No.74 of 024 arising out of Rajganj P. S. Case No.416 of 2024 dated 30.11.2024 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/27A/29 of the NDPS Act. In the matter of : Sapikul Miya ... Petitioner.

Mr. Anirban Banerjee ...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ujjwal Luksom, Mr. Saikat Chatterjee ...for the State.

1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of vehicle being Registration No.WB 63A 2117 wherefrom the contraband substances were recovered. However, there is no recovery from the petitioner. The persons from whom the recovery was made have been granted bail by the Hon'ble Court. He seeks for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.

2. Opposing such prayer for anticipatory bail, learned Advocate for the State submits that the petitioner being served with a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act did not cooperate in investigation. He is absconding since long. The petitioner being the vehicle owner has deemed

knowledge of the contraband substances being carried on the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was the full blood brother of the present petitioner. He seeks for dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail.

3. Perused the case diary and materials on record.

4. In the instant case, there is seizure of 151.011 kgs of contraband substances (ganja). Admittedly, the petitioner is the vehicle owner wherefrom the seizure has been effected. Notice was sent to the petitioner on 20th December, 2024 but such notice has not been responded to. Considering the aforesaid materials and the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Thus, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

6. CRM (A) 605 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)