18.08.2026 DL-1 Court No.551 [Bench ID-266058] (AD) (Rejected) In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.R.M. (A) 2359 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Gazole Police Station Case No.476 of 2025 dated 21.05.2025 corresponding to P.T.N. No.WBML01P0005432025 under Sections 21(c)/25/27(A)/29 of the NDPS Act, pending before the Learned Judge, Special Court, Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Malda. And In the matter of: Biswajit Singha @ Singh @ Fottu ….petitioner Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Kazi M Rahaman Advocate …for the petitioner Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate Mr. Sunil Gupta, Advocate … for the State 1. Anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken up for consideration. 2. This is a case under the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that although warrant of proclamation and attachment was issued against the present petitioner, the petitioner moved a revisional application and by an order passed on July 8, 2026 in CRR 1516 of 2026 such warrant of proclamation and attachment has been stayed by the learned Revisional Court. 4. As to the merits of the case, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case has already ended in a charge sheet. The 2 petitioner happens to be the owner of the truck from which narcotic contraband was seized. The contraband was seized from the conscious possession of the driver and cleaner of the said truck. 5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner refers to the charge sheet where the Investigating Officer has collected materials with regard to the ownership of the truck by the present petitioner from where the contraband was recovered. 6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act and submits that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to claim the circumstances as to the fact that the narcotic contraband was carried in the seized truck belonging to the present petitioner which was used with or without his knowledge. 7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner also submits that there are no criminal antecedents as against the present petitioner so far as the offence under the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 is concerned. He prays for anticipatory bail. 8. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that the investigation has already ended in a charge sheet as against the present petitioner as well as the other accused persons. He submits that the alleged contraband was recovered from a vehicle which was owned by the present petitioner. 9. Learned Advocate appearing for the State refers to the call 3 detail recordings which, according to him, prove that the petitioner was in conversation with the driver on the date of recovery. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the State that the contraband was being carried in the vehicle belonging to the present petitioner with his full knowledge. 10. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the call detail reports collected by the Investigating Agency are not supported by a certificate under Section 63 of BSA and as such, it cannot be relied upon. 11. Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, it appears that the narcotic contraband in the nature of brown sugar was recovered from a vehicle belonging to the present petitioner although the petitioner was not present in the vehicle at the time of recovery of such contraband. 12. Learned Advocate appearing for the State has relied upon call detail recordings between him and the driver of the offending vehicle. Ultimately, the charge sheet has been filed against the present petitioner and other accused persons. 13. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid materials collected in course of investigation and also taking into account that the charge sheet has already been submitted in the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not able to overcome the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS 4 Act, 1985. 14. Consequently, I am unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. 16. C.R.M. (A) 2359 of 2026 is dismissed. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) ABHIJIT DAS Digitally signed by ABHIJIT DAS Date: 2026.08.18 17:08:32 +05'30'