11.09.2026 Ct. No. 446 Sl. No.22 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. (A) 2201 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 08.07.2026 in connection with KaliachakPolice Station Case No.2130 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025 under Sections21(c)/27A/29 of the NDPS Act. And In Re: Md. Sarip Sk. @ Sarip & Anr. … … Petitioners Mr. Amitabha Karmakar Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick … … for the petitioners Mr. Anindya Ghosh Mr. Pronojit Roy … … for the State 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 2130 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025 under Sections 21(c)/27A/29 of the NDPS Act. 2. Mr. Karmakar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that, according to the prosecution case, acting upon source information, the complainant proceeded to the spot and allegedly recovered 7.863 kilograms of brown sugar from the accused persons, who were allegedly found preparing and selling the said contraband substance at the spot. 3. Referring to an unreported decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CRM (NDPS) 492 of 2022 with CRM (NDPS) 493 of 2022 (Kalu Sk. @ Kuran vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), he submits 2 that, while considering the said two bail applications, the Hon’ble Division Bench directed that, in all cases involving recovery of narcotic substances in excess of commercial quantity, the seizure officer shall make a video recording of the entire seizure and recovery procedure. 4. Mr. Karmakar submits that, in the present case, no video recording of the seizure and recovery procedure was made, which, according to him, seriously undermines the prosecution case regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. He further submits that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the purported confessional statements of the co-accused persons. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1, he submits that such statements have no evidentiary value in the eye of law. In such circumstances, according to him, the materials collected by the prosecution do not justify curtailment of the petitioner’s liberty and, accordingly, the petitioner may be granted pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, produces the Memo of Evidence as well as the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the basis of the materials available therein. 6. Referring to the certificate appearing at pages 210 and 211 of the case diary, he submits that the seizure of the contraband article was videographed in the present case. He further submits that, in the course of investigation, a further quantity of 3 kilograms of brown sugar was subsequently recovered from the accused persons arrested till date. According to him, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, it would not be appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Referring to the Memo of Evidence, he submits that the petitioner has criminal 3 antecedents and was involved in two other criminal cases of a similar nature. The Memo of Evidence, filed in Court today, is taken on record. 7. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the case diary as well as the other materials on record including the Memo of Evidence. 8. The certificate contained in the case diary prima facie certifies that the seizure of the contraband article was videographed in the present case. It further appears that a total quantity of 10.863 kilograms of brown sugar was allegedly recovered from the accused persons. The FIR further alleges that the petitioner fled from the spot and was allegedly identified by the complainant at the spot. 9. Needless to state that any infirmity or defect in the course of investigation, if brought to the notice of the Court, is a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail; however, no inflexible rule can be laid down that the mere existence of such defect, irrespective of its nature or significance, would by itself entitle an accused to be released on bail or to the benefit of Section 482 of the BNSS. While considering an application for anticipatory bail or bail, the Court is required to assess the cumulative effect of the materials collected in the course of investigation and the circumstances emerging therefrom. In a case involving offences under the NDPS Act, such consideration must necessarily be undertaken bearing in mind the statutory mandate contained in Section 37 thereof, as also the other relevant factors and the settled principles governing the grant of bail or anticipatory bail, as the case may be. 10. In the present case, a substantial quantity of contraband, namely 7.863 kgs. of brown sugar, was allegedly recovered from the accused 4 persons at the spot. Subsequently, pursuant to information furnished by one of the accused persons, a further quantity of 3 kgs. of brown sugar was allegedly recovered. It also appears from the materials on record that the seizure was videographed. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner fled from the spot and was identified there by the complainant. Thus, the petitioner cannot be said to have been implicated solely on the basis of the purported confessional statement of any co-accused. Furthermore, the petitioner has past criminal antecedents and is involved in two cases of similar nature. 11. Therefore, having regard to the cumulative effect of the aforesaid materials and the role attributed to the petitioner, and in the absence of any material prima facie indicating that the petitioner satisfies the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, I am of the view that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the benefit of Section 482 of the BNSS cannot be extended in favour of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected. 13. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)