07.09.2026 Sl. No.9 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. (A) 2324 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No.1401 of 2025 dated 10.08.2025 under sections 21(c)/27A/29 of the NDPS Act And In Re: Matiur Sk @ Md. Moti Sk. @ Kana … … Petitioner Mr. A Krmakar Mr. A K Bhowmick … … for the petitioner Mr. Palash Ch. Poddar Mr. Rohan Bavishi … … for the State 1. Mr. Bhowmick, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that a co-accused person standing on the same footing as the petitioner has been granted the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS. Referring to the order dated 31st July, 2026, passed in CRM(A) 1624 of 2026, he submits that, noticing the complicity of the petitioner, a report was called for, and the report reflects that there were neither any criminal antecedents nor any CRD or SDR or money trail available against him. Accordingly, the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS was extended in his favour. He prays for bail on the ground of parity. 2. Mr. Poddar, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the memo of evidence and the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners on the basis of the materials available therein. He submits that the petitioner remained absconding for a considerable period of time. A warrant of proclamation and attachment were issued 2 against him, and the same were executed. He submits that such a person does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 1.539 kgs. of contraband (heroin) was allegedly recovered from co-accused person(s), and it is alleged that the petitioner used to supply the raw materials for the preparation of brown sugar. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the warrant of proclamation and warrant of attachment were issued and executed against the petitioner in June, 2026. There is a catena of decisions holding that when a person is declared a proclaimed offender and is actively absconding or not cooperating with the investigation, he cannot claim the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS. In the case of Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. & Anr., reported in 2026 6 SCC 216, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that an absconding accused person cannot claim anticipatory bail on the sole ground of parity if the co-accused person has been acquitted during the period when they were evading the law and seeking pre-arrest bail. 4. Applying the settled proposition of law and considering the nature of the offence, I am of the view that it would not be proper to extend the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)