Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 28861 (CAL)

MANOJ RAHA v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(A)/423/2026 · 2026-07-20

Shampa Sarkar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri 20.07.2026 Item No.11 Court No.11 (GB) CRM (A) 423 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 And In the matter of: Manoj Raha ….Petitioner. Mr. Subham Ghosh, Mr. Mayank Roy, Mr. Hasanur Rahaman …for the Petitioner. Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. PP., Mr. Raj Kumar Mitra, Mr. Debabrata Rai … for the State. 1. The investigating officer was directed to submit a report with regard to the physical possession of the vehicle as on date of alleged occurrence of the offence, that is, on August 26, 2025. 2. Today, the investigating officer has filed a report and it appears that the ARTO, Siliguri stated in his letter that the application with regard to the transfer of the ownership of the concerned vehicle was initiated in favour of the petitioner on August 24, 2025 as per Vahan-4 Data and the fees against such application was also deposited on August 25, 2025. 3. The petitioner had raised an objection for being arraigned as an accused, on the ground that he was not the owner of the vehicle and, as such, the seizure of the contraband substance from the driver of 2 the vehicle could not be connected to any involvement of the petitioner in this case. 4. Admittedly, commercial quantity of contraband material was seized. The application for transfer of ownership of the vehicle was initiated in favour of the petitioner on August 24, 2025. The statement of the accused/driver, prima facie, indicates the involvement of the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No.854 of 2025 dated August 26, 2025 under Sections 21(c)/22(c)/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985, is rejected. 6. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.)