SWAPAN KUMAR NAYEK SOUMYA RAHA vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL — CRM(M) /419/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 17th March 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0062882026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

13th February 2026

Filing Number

CRM(M) /378/2026

Filing Date

09-02-2026

Registration No

CRM(M) /419/2026

Registration Date

10-02-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP C (CRIMINAL MATTERS) ( 3 )

Sub-Category

Bail/Cancellation of bail ( 11 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL SECTION

Decision Date

17th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 483
Indian Penal Code Act ,1860 Section 406/409/420/468

Petitioner(s)

SWAPAN KUMAR NAYEK SOUMYA RAHA

Respondent(s)

STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA

13-02-2026

APPLICATION FOR BAIL

17-03-2026

APPLICATION FOR BAIL

16-03-2026

APPLICATION FOR BAIL

13-03-2026

APPLICATION FOR BAIL

12-03-2026

APPLICATION FOR BAIL

Orders

23-03-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA

The court partially relaxed bail conditions imposed on Swapan Kumar Nayek, the Municipality Chairman accused of criminal breach of trust and forgery, allowing him to attend his office 12:00-2:00 p.m. three days weekly with 24 hours' prior notice. The court balanced the municipality's operational needs against ongoing investigation concerns by permitting limited office access under supervision to prevent evidence tampering or witness interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court partially relaxed bail conditions imposed on Swapan Kumar Nayek, the Municipality Chairman accused of criminal breach of trust and forgery, allowing him to attend his office 12:00-2:00 p.m. three days weekly with 24 hours' prior notice. The court balanced the municipality's operational needs against ongoing investigation concerns by permitting limited office access under supervision to prevent evidence tampering or witness interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case