07/07/2026 D/L – 66 Court No.28 S. Kundu Rejected C.R.M.(A) 1538 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Thanarpara P.S case no. 296 of 2025 dated 10/09/2025 under sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. In the matter of: Janarul Islam Khan ...Petitioner. Mr. Asraf Mondal …for the petitioner. Mr. Bankim Pal …for the State. 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. This is a second application for anticipatory bail. The first application was not pressed by the petitioner on 04/12/2025 in CRM (A) 3703 of 2025 because at that time charge sheet was not submitted. Now, charge sheet has been submitted, albeit under the same provisions. There is no other material available against the petitioner except for the statement of the co- accused. There is a criminal antecedent of the petitioner in respect of which he was granted bail. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State relies on the case diary and strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the report, which is taken on record and submits that there is a criminal antecedent of the petitioner. In any event, a second application for anticipatory bail would not be maintainable if there is no 2 material change in circumstance of the case. In the present case, the charge sheet has been submitted under the same provisions as contained in the FIR. Moreover, no liberty was granted to move the application afresh while dismissing the application for anticipatory bail as not pressed. 3. Filing of a charge sheet is a natural consequence of initiation of a criminal proceeding. If the charge sheet is filed under the same provisions as present in the FIR, it is not a material change in circumstance. 4. As would appear from the order dated 04/12/2025, the application was not pressed and no liberty was granted or prayed for. 5. Considering the above, the other materials available in the case diary, the fact that there is a criminal antecedent of the petitioner and the restriction contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, I do not consider this to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)