MURSED SK @ MURSHED @ MURSED SEKH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
CRM (A)/2417/2026 · 2026-08-18
Md Shabbar Rashidi
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 34441 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 34441 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
AD 20 August 18, 2026 Ct. 551
SG
CRM(A) 2417 of 2026 Rejected An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Kaliachak P.S. Case No.128 of 2026 dated 25.01.2026 under Sections 21(c)/27A/29 of the NDPS Act,
1985. And In the matter of: Mursed Sk @ Murshed @ Mursed Sekh … petitioner
Md. Nasim Akram Mr. Anwar Hossain
… for the petitioner
Mr. Sagar Saha
Ms. Nayana Mukhopadhyay
… for the State
1. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged recovery of contraband articles. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the investigation of the case has already ended in a charge-sheet against the petitioner as well as other accused persons. He prays for anticipatory bail.
2. On the other hand, learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the name of the present petitioner transpired from the written complaint lodged in the case. He was present when the raid was conducted. However, he managed to flee away from the spot.
2
3. Learned advocate for the State also submits that there are ample materials available in the case diary against the petitioner.
4. It transpires that commercial quantity of narcotic contraband was in the nature of brown sugar was recovered from the possession of some of the accused persons who have been charge-sheeted. The written complaint itself discloses that the petitioner was there, but he could not be arrested as he managed to flee away from the place of raid. He has been absconding and charge-sheet has been submitted against the present petitioner as well as other accused persons.
5. In such circumstances and in view of the aforesaid materials available in the case diary, I am not in a position to come to a finding that the petitioner has been able to overcome the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
6. Consequently, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
7. CRM (A) 2417 of 2026 is disposed of.
8. Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
3