21.08.2026 Sl. No.21 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. (A) 2186 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Gangarampur Police Station Case No.137 of 2026 dated 06.03.2026 under sections 21(C)/ 22(C)/ 23(C)/27A/28/29 of the NDPS Act And In Re: Sayed Noor Nabi Ali Sha Fakir … … Petitioner Mr. Vijay Verma Mr. Subrata Saha Mr. Vikas Kumar … … for the petitioner Mr. Shankar Mukherjee … … for the State 1. Mr. Verma, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. He submits that it is a well-settled proposition of law that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Therefore, based on such confessional statement, the personal liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed. He prays for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the State, produces the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of the materials available therein. Referring to page 183 of the case diary, he submits that, from the call detail records, it is evident that the petitioner had telephonic conversations on several occasions at the relevant point of time. 3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the CD and other materials on record. 2 4. At this stage, the question is not whether the statement of the co- accused can ultimately be relied upon as substantive evidence at the trial, but whether, upon excluding such statement from consideration, the materials collected during investigation disclose circumstances connecting the applicant with the alleged offences. The evidentiary value of such materials is a matter to be considered at the trial. 5. At the stage of considering an application for bail or anticipatory bail, particularly in a case attracting the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is required to examine whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence and whether the investigation has yielded any independent material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences. In the present case, the call detail records indicate that the petitioner had several telephonic conversations with the principal accused around the time of commission of the alleged offences. In view of the existence of such independent material connecting the petitioner with the principal accused, I am of the view that, at this stage, the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, cannot be extended in favour of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)