Dismissed¶17

Pagla Paswan @ Amarjit Pasman v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC20 Jul 2026CRM(A)/414/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court (Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench), CRM (A) 414 of 2026, decided 20.07.2026 by Shampa Sarkar, J. Anticipatory bail under S. 482 BNSS 2023 rejected in NDPS case (Ss. 21(b)/29) where applicant implicated via co-accused Ganesh Paswan's statement alleging brown-sugar supply network run by 'Pagla' and Raj; custodial interrogation held necessary; co-accused Raj earlier bailed after 62 days. Counsel: Subrata Karmakar and Madhumita Sarkar for petitioner; Avrojyoti Das (Ld. APP), Panchali Deb Sikder (Nag) and Madhushri Dutta for the State.

What did the court decide?

The court cannot be persuaded to hold that custodial interrogation of the petitioner will not be necessary in this case. ¶16

Pagla Paswan @ Amarjit Pasman Vs the State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

20.07.2026 SL No.8 Court No.11 (gc)

¶2

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

¶3

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

¶4

CRM (A) 414 of 2026

¶5

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No.88 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026 under Sections 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶6

And

¶7

In the matter of : Pagla Paswan @ Amarjit Pasman

¶8

Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Subrata Karmakar, Ms. Madhumita Sarkar

¶10

….For the Petitioner. Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. APP, Ms. Panchali Deb Sikder (Nag), Ms. Madhushri Dutta

¶11

… For the State.

¶12

This application has been filed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No.88 of 2026 dated February 19, 2026 under Sections 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner submits that he was arraigned as an accused on the basis of the statement of a co-accused. The statement of the coaccused was not admissible in evidence and as such, the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail on any stringent condition.

¶13

From the statement of the accused, Ganesh Paswan, as recorded by the Investigating Officer, it appears that the specific contention of the said Ganesh Paswan was that he used to work for Pagla and Raj of No.2 Ghumti at Jalpaiguri and he supplied

¶14

¶15

brown sugar to different areas of Jalpaiguri. Payment was made by Pagla and Raj. He also stated to the police that if an opportunity was given, he would be able to assist the police in busting the racket. He promised the Investigating Officer that he would lead the officer to Pagla, Raj and Anup. It appears that Raj was arrested and thereafter granted bail after 62 days.

¶16

Thus, I cannot be persuaded to hold that custodial interrogation will not be necessary in this case.

¶17

Under such circumstances, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶18

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly

¶19

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶20

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Pagla Paswan @ Amarjit Pasman v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pagla Paswan @ Amarjit Pasman 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

Shashi Agarwal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mst Sahana Parvin and Ors. Vs Subhas Paul Executive Engineer PWD Roads Malda Highways Division Singatala Malda Division and Anr.

Samad Mir and Ors. Vs Debabrata Chakraborty the Pradhan Kismat Naikundi Gram Panchayat

Amit Kumar Oraon Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Nabiyar Miah Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Aditya@Anand Visal @ Anand Vishal Vs the State of West Bengal