07.07.2026 Court No.28 Item Nos.54 & 57 tbsr Allowed CRM (A) 1406 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Lalgola P.S. Case No.700 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. And In the matter of: Yakub Ali @ Yeakub Ali ….Petitioner. With CRM (A) 1456 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Lalgola P.S. Case No.970 of 2025 dated 14.11.2025 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. And In the matter of: Yakub Ali @ Yeakub Ali @ Yekub Ali ….Petitioner. Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh Mr. Md. Golam Nure Imrohi Mr. Partha Pratiom Sinha Ms. Laboni Sikdar …for the petitioner (in both cases). Mr. L. Vishal Kumar Mr. Sanjib Das ….for the State in CRM(A) 1406 of 2026. Mr. Bhaskar Seth Mr. Suman Chakraborty ….for the State in CRM(A) 1456 of 2026. Let the two matters being CRM(A) 1406 of 2026 and CRM(A) 1456 of 2026 be taken up for hearing together as the two cases were started against the same accused, being the petitioner, among other things. 2 Report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is a student. He is the brother of an advocate. The Officer-in-Charge of the local police station and some other police personnel had been falsely implicating people under provisions of the NDPS Act. In this regard, a complaint was filed by an advocate. 15 other advocates including the petitioner’s own brother were witnesses in the said case. A writ petition has also been filed before this Court. The petitioner in absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in CRM(A) 1406 of 2026 relies on the case diary and strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that as per the report, other than the statement of co-accused, there are no call detail records or money transaction to implicate the present petitioner. However, the two cases were started three months apart and one is the criminal antecedent for the other. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in CRM(A) 1456 of 2026 also relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. It appears that in both the cases, the only material available against the petitioner is the statement of a co-accused. It is also quite relevant that a compliant case has been started against the police personnel alleging that they had been falsely implicating local persons in criminal cases. 3 In view of the above, the petitioner has been able to rebut the restriction contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and considering the other materials available in the case diary, the fact that only material available against the petitioner is the statement of co- accused and the fact that charge sheet has been submitted in both the cases, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in both the cases. In the event of arrest, the petitioner in both the cases shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and on further condition that the petitioner in both the cases shall surrender before the learned jurisdictional Court within four weeks from this date and pray for bail and shall regularly attend the jurisdictional Court and shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses. The applications for anticipatory bail are, thus, allowed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for. (Jay Sengupta, J.)