Dismissed¶5

Ranjit Singh v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC18 May 2026CRM(A)/225/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri; C.R.M.(A) 225 of 2026; decided 18.05.2026 by Krishna Rao, J. Anticipatory bail under S.482 BNSS 2023 rejected in NDPS matter (Ss. 21(C)/29 NDPS Act): Banarhat Police Station Case No. 32 of 2026 / NDPS Case No. 156 of 2026, Alipurduar. Petitioner Ranjit Singh; State case that he ran the shop business where narcotics were seized. Application dismissed; case diary returned.

What did the court decide?

The Court found that the petitioner had not made out any case for grant of anticipatory bail and accordingly rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail. ¶4

Ranjit Singh Vs the State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

18.05.2026 SL No.11 Court No.5 S.Gayen

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

¶3

C.R.M.(A) 225 of 2026

¶4

In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Banarhat Police Station Case No. 32 of 2026 dated 12.02.2026 under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act corresponding to NDPS Case No. 156 of 2026 pending before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Alipurduar.

¶5

-And-

¶6

In the matter of: Ranjit Singh

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

Mr. Arijit Ghosh Ms. Angana Rakshit Ms. Sudipa Ghosh

¶9

…for the Petitioner

¶10

Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, ld. APP (in-charge)

¶11

…for the State

¶12

This instant application has been filed with a prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner was arrested and nothing has been seized from the petitioner and the petitioner is no way connected with the said case. He further submits that the shop is not recorded in the name of the petitioner but the petitioner will be arrested by the police any point of time in the instant case.

¶14

Learned APP-in-Charge and the Investigating Officer are present and produced the case diary. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was running the business in the said shop and at the time of raid the petitioner was not there but when the raid was conducted the narcotics have been seized. Learned

¶15

¶16

counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is also involved in this matter.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the materials on record and the case diary. This Court finds that the petitioner is not made out any case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶18

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail being C.R.M. (A) 225 of 2026 is dismissed.

¶19

The case diary is returned.

¶20

(Krishna Rao, J.)

Ranjit Singh v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anirban Chakraborty Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Anirban Chakraborty Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Anirban Chakraborty Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Anarul Miya Vs the State of West Bengal

Ajoy Roy Vs the State of West Bengal

Rajeev Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.