28.08.2026 SL No.30 Court No.446 S.Gayen IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.(A) 2276 of 2025 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. -And- In the matter of: Goutam Roy @ Kalu Roy …Petitioner Mr. Robiul Islam Mr. Subham Bhakat Mr. Masooq Rahman …for the Petitioner Mr. Indradip Das Mr. Ranjit Singh …for the State 1. This instant application has been filed with a prayer for anticipatory bail. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case solely on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused person. He submits that the statement of the co-accused person has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law and that such statement is not admissible under the provisions of Section 23(1) of the BSA. He further submits that only on the basis of such statement, the personal liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed and, consequently, according to him, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS. 3. Learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary and Memo of Evidence and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the State submits that a huge quantity of contraband articles has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and certain materials are available in 2 the CD showing transaction of money between the principal accused person and the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the case diary and other materials on record. 5. Materials on record indicate that a huge quantity of contraband articles, i.e., 22.300 kgs. of ganja, was allegedly recovered from the possession of the principal accused person. Apart from the confessional statement of the co-accused person, the prosecution has collected materials evidencing the transaction of money between the petitioner and the principal accused person at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, keeping in mind the legislative mandate engrafted in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is required and that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS. 6. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. 7. As a sequel, the application for anticipatory bail being C.R.M. (A) 2276 of 2026 stands dismissed. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)