Mukesh Kumar@Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs the State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2026)

Mukesh Kumar@Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs the State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail granted on stringent conditions: release on arrest on a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one local), subject to Section 438(2) CrPC / Section 482(2) BNSS conditions, weekly reporting to the investigating officer until conclusion of investigation, no intimidation of witnesses or tampering with evidence, and no leaving the jurisdiction of Naxalbari police station; jurisdictional court free to cancel bail on breach without further reference to this Court; application disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory (pre-arrest) bail in connection with the excise seizure case (260 cartons of liquor) registered at Naxalbari Excise Station, Darjeeling.

Court's answer

Considering the stand taken by the Excise Authority before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri and the contents of the FIR, the Court allowed the prayer for pre-arrest bail on stringent conditions.

Ratio / Principle

In the event of arrest, the petitioner is to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC / Section 482(2) BNSS conditions; he shall meet the investigating officer once a week and cooperate till conclusion of investigation, shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence, and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Naxalbari police station.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner fails to adhere to any of the bail conditions, the learned jurisdictional court is entitled to cancel the bail without further reference to this Court.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under S.438 CrPC / S.482 BNSS granted to Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav in a Naxalbari Excise Station, Darjeeling case (Seizure List No. 18/25-26 dated 26.09.2025, Bengal Excise Act Ss.46(b)/46(A)(c)/52/55/61, 260 cartons of liquor). The petitioner asserted that the vehicle from which the liquor was seized was not in his possession or control and that, on his statement, the excise authorities sought a warrant only against Rajiv Kumar Yadav as prime accused. Considering the stand of the Excise Authority before the ACJM, Siliguri and the contents of the FIR, bail was allowed on a bond of Rs.50,000/- with two like sureties (one local), subject to S.438(2) CrPC / S.482(2) BNSS conditions, weekly meetings with the investigating officer, non-intimidation of witnesses and non-tampering with evidence, and confinement to Naxalbari police station jurisdiction; breach entitles the jurisdictional court to cancel bail without further reference.

23.07.2026 Ct. No. 11 SL No.5 Cp

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

CRM (A) No. 496 of 2026

In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. 2023, in connection with Naxalbari Excise Station, Darjeeling SI’s Seizure List No. 18/25-26 dated 26.09.2025, under Sections 46(b)/46(A)(c)/52/55/61 of the Bengal Excise Act.

And

In the matter of: Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav

….Petitioner. Mr. Subham Ghosh Mr. Mayank Roy …for the Petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Agarwala Mr. Atul Dong … for the State.

The petitioners pray for pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner submits that the vehicle from which the 260 cartons of liquor were seized was not in his possession and control. He had authorized Rajiv Kumar Yadav to carry on his business of sale of vegetables. He refers to the complaint filed by the Sub-Inspector of Excise and the prayer for issuance of the warrant of arrest filed by the Officer-in-Charge, Naxalbari Excise Station before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. From the said prayer it appears that the petitioner cooperated with the excise authorities and based on the statement of the petitioner, prayer for warrant of arrest was made only against Rajiv Kumar Yadav who was considered to be the prime accused by the Excise Department.

2

Learned advocate for the State submits that the name of the petitioner transpires from the statement of the erstwhile owner and the fact that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle is not in doubt.

Considering the stand taken by the Excise Authority before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri and the contents of the FIR, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail on stringent conditions.

Accordingly, this court directs that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023. The petitioner shall meet the investigating officer once a week and cooperate till conclusion of the investigation and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner shall also not leave the jurisdiction of the Naxalbari police station.

In case the petitioner fails to adhere to any of the conditions stated above, the learned jurisdictional court shall be entitled to cancel the bail without further reference to this court.

The application for anticipatory bail, thus, disposed of.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)