Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 445 (CAL)

MEGHNATH ROY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/600/2026 · 2026-03-11

Jay Sengupta

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

11/03/2026 D/L – 40 Court No.28 S. Kundu Rejected C.R.M.(A) 600 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Berhampore P.S case no. 2473 of 2025 dated 20/11/2025 under sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act In the matter of: Meghnath Roy ...Petitioner. Mr. Arnab Chatterjee Mr. Avik Ghosh …for the petitioner. Mr. Partha Pratim Das Mr. Saptarshi Chakraborty …for the State. 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner used to work as an informer for the police. After he refused to continue to do so, false cases were started against him. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State relies on the report, which is taken on record. He relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. According to him, other than the materials available in the case diary, there are as many as eight criminal antecedents against the present petitioner, out of which two are under the NDPS Act. There are some other cases under the Arms Act and even under the POCSO Act. There is also one case that was started on 18/03/2024 under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC. 2 3. Considering the above, the other materials available in the case diary and the restriction contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, I do not consider this to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Jay Sengupta, J.)