ANARUL HAQUE KALIPADA DAS vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — CRM(A)/132/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 18-Feb-2026

CNR: WBCHCJ0006982026

Filing Number

CRM(A)/132/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM(A)/132/2026

Registration Date

16-Feb-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP C (CRIMINAL MATTERS) ( 3 )

Sub-Category

Anticipatory Bail ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL SECTION

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 27-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANARUL HAQUE KALIPADA DAS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Jay SenguptaView PDF

    The Calcutta High Court rejected Anarul Haque's application for anticipatory bail in an NDPS drug trafficking case. The court found that despite the petitioner's argument that only co-accused statements existed against him, additional incriminating materials including phone call records with the principal accused, combined with Section 37 restrictions of the NDPS Act, made the case unsuitable for anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Application For Anticipatory Bail

    Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Jay SenguptaView PDF

  5. 19-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Suvra GhoshView PDF

  6. 19-Feb-2026

    Application For Anticipatory Bail

    Hon'ble Justice Suvra Ghosh

  7. 18-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM(A)/132/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Calcutta High Court rejected Anarul Haque's application for anticipatory bail in an NDPS drug trafficking case. The court found that despite the petitioner's argument that only co-accused statements existed against him, additional incriminating materials including phone call records with the principal accused, combined with Section 37 restrictions of the NDPS Act, made the case unsuitable for anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case