CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION 01.07.2026 Ct No.5, sl.4 s.k. CRM (A) 334 of 2026 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. And In Re: Kanti Mahato @ Kanti Sah ..… Petitioner Mr. Nilay Chakraborty Mr. Sourav Lohani ….For the Petitioner Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. APP Mr. Uday Bhattacharjee Mr. Gobinda Saha ……For the State 1. According to the petitioner, she is no way connected with the alleged offence insofar as she was not present at the house from where the contraband was seized. 2. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being the mother of the principal accused person has been wrongly entangled in the instant case, having no connection therewith. 3. Submission of the petitioner about her no involvement in the offence as well as not being present in the house at the time of search and seizure, does not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court, in view of the materials in CD. 4. In view of the materials in the C.D. particularly the seizure list available which shows that from the house of the petitioner, the contraband has been seized, her implication in the alleged offence has prima facie transpired. 2

5. Materials in the C.D. further indicate about the possible wayout for escape of the petitioner to avoid arrest and the statement of the witnesses also indicates about involvement of the present petitioner in the offence. 6. Considering all as above, the bail prayer of the petitioner is rejected. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION 01.07.2026 Ct No.5, sl.4 s.k. CRM (A) 334 of 2026 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. And In Re: Kanti Mahato @ Kanti Sah ..… Petitioner Mr. Nilay Chakraborty Mr. Sourav Lohani ….For the Petitioner Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. APP Mr. Uday Bhattacharjee Mr. Gobinda Saha ……For the State 1. According to the petitioner, she is no way connected with the alleged offence insofar as she was not present at the house from where the contraband was seized. 2. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being the mother of the principal accused person has been wrongly entangled in the instant case, having no connection therewith. 3. Submission of the petitioner about her no involvement in the offence as well as not being present in the house at the time of search and seizure, does not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court, in view of the materials in CD. 4. In view of the materials in the C.D. particularly the seizure list available which shows that from the house of the petitioner, the contraband has been seized, her implication in the alleged offence has prima facie transpired. 2

5. Materials in the C.D. further indicate about the possible wayout for escape of the petitioner to avoid arrest and the statement of the witnesses also indicates about involvement of the present petitioner in the offence. 6. Considering all as above, the bail prayer of the petitioner is rejected. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)