14.09.2026 Item no. 1 Ct. No.237 AKG C.R.R. 2581 of 2025 Shibu Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta, Mr. Shiladitya Barma, Ms. Sofia Nesar, Mr. Pratush Ray …for the Petitioner Mr. Subhasish Pachhal, Mr. Bikash Kr. Singh …for the State The instant Criminal Revisional Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings in Special Case No. 125 of 2021 arising out of Malda Police Station Case No. 556 of 2021 dated November 12, 2021, under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “NDPS Act”), read with Sections 18(b)/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short, “DC Act”), pending before the learned Judge, Special 3rd Court under the NDPS Act, Malda. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant Criminal Revisional Application are as follows: On November 12, 2021, the police personnel of Malda Police Station lodged a suo motu complaint alleging, inter alia, that one 2 Masroor, son of Late Islam, and Md. Arif, son of Ghurekha, both residents of Hazipur, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, were apprehended with a Tata Truck bearing registration no. UP15CT2770, pursuant to source information and after a hot chase at Narayanpur Popra More under Malda Police Station. Upon search, 20,000 bottles of Phensedyl, three mobile handsets and Indian currency amounting to Rs. 6,500/- were allegedly recovered from their possession. It was further alleged that, during interrogation, the detained accused persons confessed that the seized contraband belonged to one Asif @ Viki of Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. They further disclosed that the said articles were to be delivered to one Shyam of Gangarampur, Dakshin Dinajpur, in exchange for money. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Malda Police Station Case No. 556 of 2021 dated November 12, 2021, under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act read with Sections 18(b)/27 of the DC Act, was registered against four accused persons and investigation was taken up. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating agency submitted Charge Sheet No. 242 of 2022 dated May 7, 2022, under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act read with Sections 18(b)/27 of the DC Act, against seven accused persons, including the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that although the petitioner has been implicated in the charge-sheet, no material whatsoever has been collected against him in the course of the investigation. It is 3 submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the case solely on the basis of the statements of certain co-accused recorded by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. Apart from the aforesaid statements, there is nothing on record to suggest the petitioner's involvement in the alleged commission of the offences. It is further submitted that such statements have no evidentiary value in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is also submitted that nothing was seized from the possession of the petitioner. No call records or money trail implicating the petitioner were found in the course of the investigation. Mr. Gupta further submits that another co-accused in the present case, namely, Aasif Mohammad @ Asif Mohammad @ Asif @ Viki, approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings against him and a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated April 6, 2026, passed in CRR 4110 of 2022, quashed the proceedings against the said accused. Mr. Subhasish Pachhal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposes the prayer of the petitioner. Mr. Pachhal submits that the next date before the learned Trial Court is September 16, 2026, when the matter is fixed for consideration of the question of framing of charges. It is further submitted that the petitioner is absconding. According to Mr. Pachhal, it would be premature at this stage to arrive at any finding with regard to the 4 guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner ought to surrender before the learned Court below and participate in the proceedings, whereupon he would be at liberty to file an appropriate application seeking discharge. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this Court is, however, of the opinion that there is no justification for permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioner. From the charge-sheet, it clearly appears that the statements of only two accused persons, namely, Sam Saha @ Shyam Saha @ Shyamal Saha and Swapan Dutta @ Panchu, were recorded by the investigating agency in the course of the investigation. They allegedly stated before the investigating agency that the petitioner had a 28% share in the business of running the alleged racket. Apart from the aforesaid statements, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court which may implicate the petitioner in the present case. Sam Saha @ Shyam Saha @ Shyamal Saha and Swapan Dutta @ Panchu have themselves been shown as accused persons in the charge-sheet. Their statements made before the police, therefore, could not have been relied upon as substantive evidence against the petitioner in view of the express bar contained in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. At the cost of repetition, apart from the aforesaid two statements, no other material has been collected by the 5 investigating agency against the petitioner in the course of the investigation. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the investigating agency has failed to collect any prosecutable material against the petitioner during the course of the investigation. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be subjected to trial solely on the basis of the aforesaid statements. Mr. Gupta has also rightly submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. His name surfaced only upon submission of the charge-sheet. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail during the investigation. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the entire proceedings, including the impugned charge-sheet arising out of Malda Police Station Case No. 556 of 2021 dated November 12, 2021, under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, read with Sections 18(b)/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as well as the order dated March 3, 2025, passed in Special Case No. 125 of 2021, pending before the learned Judge, Special 3rd Court under the NDPS Act, Malda, stand quashed as against the petitioner. Needless to mention, if the petitioner's name subsequently surfaces in the course of the trial on the basis of any legally admissible material, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Accordingly, CRR 2581 of 2025 is allowed. 6 Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Kausik Chanda, J.)