Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34414 (CAL)

MITHU CHOUDHURY @ LOKO CHOUHAN @ LOKO CHOUDHURY @ MITHUN CHUDHURY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/2422/2026 · 2026-08-20

Md Shabbar Rashidi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

20.08.2026 DL-8 Court No.551 [Bench ID-266058] (AD) (Rejected) In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.R.M. (A) 2422 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Hili Police Station Case No.186 of 2025 dated 09.09.2025 under Sections 21(c)/22(c)/23(c)/27A/28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and read with Sections 27a/27A/27(b)(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (corresponding to NDPS Case No.69 of 2025) pending in the Court of the Learned Special Judge (under NDPS Act)-cum-ADJ, 3rd Court, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat. And In the matter of: Mithu Choudhury @ Loko Chouhan @ Loko Choudhury @ Mithun Chudhury ….petitioner Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, Advocate Mr. Dwaipayan Panda, Advocate …for the petitioner Mr. Prabir Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Koustav Lal Mukherjee, Advocate … for the State 1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. He has been implicated in this case on the basis of the statement of co-accused made while in custody. Moreover, investigation of the case has already concluded in a charge sheet. He prays for anticipatory bail. 2. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the State refers to the materials in the case diary. He submits that at least four cases were registered involving NDPS Act, 1985 as against the present petitioner. 2 3. Considering the aforesaid circumstances as well as the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not able to overcome the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 4. Consequently, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. 6. C.R.M. (A) 2422 of 2026 is dismissed. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) ABHIJIT DAS Digitally signed by ABHIJIT DAS Date: 2026.08.21 16:35:22 +05'30'