09.07.2026 Sl. No.78 NB CRM (A) 1625 of 2026 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with NDPS Case No.70 of 2026 arising out of NCB Crime No.08/NCB/KOL/2026 dated 15.04.2026 under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. And In the matter of: Kushal Baid … petitioner Md. Abdur Rakib, Ms. Geetika Agarwal, Mr. Mojahid Mehedi. …for the petitioner. Mr. Himangsu De, Mr. Uttam Basak. ….for the NCB. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is absolutely innocent. The only material available against him is the statement of his brother who has been made an accused only pursuant to a statement of the principal accused. The petitioner had responded to a notice given by the NCB earlier and cooperated with the investigation. If the petitioner responds to the second notice issued, he would be arrested. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the NCB relies on the documents collected during investigation and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that at the time when the petitioner responded to the notice, all relevant documents like bank transactions involving the petitioner were not available with the NCB. Bank records show that there were transactions to the tune of about Rs.22Lakhs between the petitioner and the said accused brother. The 2 petitioner is only an employee of a private company earning about Rs.13,000/- per month. There were several calls made between the two. Most importantly, after the said accused being the brother of the petitioner was arrested from a road, the petitioner was seen taking away the former’s laptop from room no.304 of a residence he had at Salt Lake, where the said accused brother had been hiding. There are CCTV footages available in this regard. Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. The application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, rejected. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)