25.08.2026 Sl. No. 11 Ct. No. 446 SG [ALLOWED] C. R. M. (A) 2240 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with NDPS Case No. 31/2026 arising out of Lalgola Police Station Case No. 160/2026 dated 13.03.2026 under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act. And In Re: Mojibur Sk @ Md. Majibur Rhaman @ Md. Mojibur Rahaman. … … Petitioner Mr. Tapodip Gupta. … for the petitioner Mr. Amitabha Karmakar, Ms. Madhurai Sinha. … for the State 1. Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused person recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. He submits that it is a well- settled proposition of law that the confessional statement of a co- accused person has no evidentiary value and that the prosecution has failed to bring any other material to connect the present accused person with the crime. He submits that, solely on the basis of the confessional statement, it would not be just and proper to curtail the personal liberty of the petitioner. He further submits that previously also, the petitioner was implicated in a case under the NDPS Act. The petitioner was taken into custody and even the prosecution took him into police custody, and he remained in custody for four months; however, nothing was recovered from the petitioner. He submits that such false implication of the petitioner in another case cannot be treated as past criminal antecedents having the potential to deny the benefit under Section 482 2 of the BNSS. In such circumstances, according to him, the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Karmakar, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the case diary and memorandum of evidence and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He, in his usual fairness, submits that no CDR is available in the case diary and that there is no material to show that the petitioner is involved in the money trail. He submits that certain statements of persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances, recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, are available in the case diary. 3. The memorandum of evidence as placed is taken on record. 4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials available on record. Although the evidentiary value and effect of the confessional statement of a co-accused person shall be determined at the trial, however, in the given case, except for the confessional statement of a co- accused person, no other material is available in the case diary against the present accused person. In an earlier case, being Lalgola P.S. Case No. 1161/2024, a coordinate Bench of this Court, while dealing with the bail application of the present petitioner, observed that nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that his name transpired from the statement of the co-accused person. Therefore, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the absence of any other material against the petitioner apart from the confessional statement in the case diary, I am of the view that the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. 3 6. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner, viz., Mojibur Sk @ Md. Majibur Rhaman @ Md. Mojibur Rahaman be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act, Berhampore, Murshidabad and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and on further condition petitioner shall meet the investigating officer once in week and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station without permission of the investigating officer till the submission of charge-sheet. 7. However, in case any condition is violated, State shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to cancel the bail application. 8. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)