Disposed¶16

Shiben Sarkar v. the State of West Bengal

Anticipatory bail – NDPS Act

Calcutta HC19 Feb 2026CRM(A)/45/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.R.M. (A) 45 of 2026, High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri), decided 19.02.2026 by Suvra Ghosh, J. Anticipatory bail under S.438 CrPC r/w S.482 BNSS 2023 rejected in NDPS case (S.20(b)(ii)(c), Dinhata Police Station Case No. 302 of 2025) involving alleged recovery of commercial-quantity contraband from petitioner's house; S.37 NDPS statutory restriction applied; non-monitoring of search/seizure by ASP-rank officer acknowledged but deferred to trial; pen drive prima facie suggests videography; application disposed of, case diary returned.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; case diary to be returned. ¶16

Shiben Sarkar Vs the State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; case diary to be returned.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in Dinhata Police Station Case No. 302 of 2025 under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, notwithstanding the alleged recovery of contraband of commercial quantity and the alleged irregularities in the search and seizure (non-monitoring by a superior officer and questioned videography).

¶4

Court's answer

Anticipatory bail is refused: since contraband of commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the house of the petitioner, the statutory restriction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies and the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶16

Key takeaways

The court accepts as a fact that the search and seizure was not monitored by a superior police officer of the rank of Additional Superintendant of Police, but leaves the consequence of that irregularity to be dealt with at the appropriate stage of trial.obiter¶16
A pen drive annexed to the case diary prima facie suggests that the search and seizure was videographed.obiter¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail - NDPS Act - Ss. 20(b)(ii)(c) and 37 - Application under S.438 CrPC read with S.482 BNSS 2023 in Dinhata Police Station Case No. 302 of 2025 - Contraband of commercial quantity allegedly recovered from petitioner's house, petitioner not present at the relevant time - Search and seizure admittedly not monitored by a superior officer of the rank of Additional Superintendant of Police, but pen drive in case diary prima facie suggests videography - Irregularity, if any, left to be dealt with at the appropriate stage of trial - Statutory restriction under S.37 NDPS Act invoked - Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; application disposed of; case diary to be returned. (Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri; Suvra Ghosh, J.; 19.02.2026)

¶1

19.02.2026 Item No.12 Ct.No.06 b.das Reject

¶2

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

¶3

C.R.M. (A) 45 of 2026

¶4

In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Dinhata Police Station Case No. 302 of 2025 dated 13.06.2025 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.

¶5

And In Re : Shiben Sarkar

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Ms. Rima Sarkar Ms. Sidhi Sethia Ms. Suparna Paul ... for the Petitioner Mr. Kallol Acharjee Mr. Bhaskar Das ... for the State

¶8

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶10

narcotic substance was recovered from the house of the petitioner. The alleged search and seizure were not monitored by a superior police officer of the rank of Additional Superintendant of Police and search and seizure were also not videographed in compliance with the order of this Court in CRM (NDPS) 492 of 2022 and CRM (NDPS) 493 of 2022 passed on 22^nd June, 2022. The petitioner prays for anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer.

¶12

I have considered the material on record.

¶13

¶14

Investigation is in progress. Contraband substance of commercial quantity has been allegedly recovered from the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was not present in the house at the relevant time.

¶15

A pen drive annexed to the case diary prima facie suggests videography of the search and seizure. It is a fact that the search and seizure was not monitored by a superior police officer of the rank of Additional Superintendant of Police.

¶16

Such irregularity shall be dealt with at the appropriate stage of trial. Since contraband substance of commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the house of the petitioner, in view of the statutory restriction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶17

The application being CRM (A) 45 of 2026 is disposed

¶18

of.

¶19

Case Diary be returned.

¶20

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶21

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Shiben Sarkar v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiben Sarkar v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemal Chandra Roy@Hemel Chandra Roy Vs the State of West Bengal

Roshan Shankar Vs the State of West Bengal

Ainul Miah Vs the State of West Bengal

Jaharul Ali Vs the State of West Bengal

Rinku Das Gope and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal

Rahim Seikh Vs State of West Bengal