FARIDA KHATUN MR.SOURAV LOHANI vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — CRM(NDPS)/283/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 11th June 2026.

CNR: WBCHCJ0020372026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

08th June 2026

Filing Number

CRM(NDPS)/289/2026

Filing Date

20-05-2026

Registration No

CRM(NDPS)/283/2026

Registration Date

21-05-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP C (CRIMINAL MATTERS) ( 3 )

Sub-Category

Bail/Cancellation of bail ( 11 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL SECTION

Decision Date

11th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Petitioner(s)

FARIDA KHATUN MR.SOURAV LOHANI

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

08-06-2026

APPLICATION FOR BAIL

11-06-2026

APPLICATION FOR BAIL - 1

10-06-2026

APPLICATION FOR BAIL - 1

09-06-2026

APPLICATION FOR BAIL - 1

Orders

11-06-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Case Summary: CRM(NDPS) 283/2026 The High Court at Calcutta rejected Farida Khatun's bail application in an NDPS case involving methamphetamine seizure. The court held that procedural non-compliance with Section 52A(2) does not mandate bail, absence of videography was justified to maintain privacy since substances were recovered from the accused's clothing, and the similarity between methamphetamine and amphetamine did not aid the petitioner's case. Given the substance quantity and offense gravity, bail was denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM(NDPS) 283/2026 The High Court at Calcutta rejected Farida Khatun's bail application in an NDPS case involving methamphetamine seizure. The court held that procedural non-compliance with Section 52A(2) does not mandate bail, absence of videography was justified to maintain privacy since substances were recovered from the accused's clothing, and the similarity between methamphetamine and amphetamine did not aid the petitioner's case. Given the substance quantity and offense gravity, bail was denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case