MD. BIKKI @ BICKY AND ORS. DEBASIS KAR vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL — CRM(M)/1306/2026
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 15th June 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0237322026
Filing Number
CRM(M)/1302/2026
Filing Date
22-May-2026
Registration No
CRM(M)/1306/2026
Registration Date
22-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP C (CRIMINAL MATTERS) ( 3 )
Sub-Category
Bail/Cancellation of bail ( 11 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL SECTION
Decision Date
15-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 16-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MD. BIKKI @ BICKY AND ORS. DEBASIS KAR
-
2.SUJIT SHAW
-
3.MD. MURTUZA
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar GhoshView PDF
Summary: The court dismissed the bail application of Md. Bikki and others, accused of murder under IPC Sections 302/34 in connection with Titagarh Police Station Case No.443/2023. Although petitioners had been in custody for 2 years 9 months with only 4 of 28 witnesses examined, the court rejected bail, finding them substantially influential in the locality with capacity to intimidate witnesses—evidenced by a prosecution witness already turning hostile. The court concluded their release would jeopardize the trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Jun-2026
New Bail Application
Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh
-
12-Jun-2026
New Bail Application
Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh
-
11-Jun-2026
New Bail Application
Hon'ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)
-
26-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRM(M)/1306/2026
Summary: The court dismissed the bail application of Md. Bikki and others, accused of murder under IPC Sections 302/34 in connection with Titagarh Police Station Case No.443/2023. Although petitioners had been in custody for 2 years 9 months with only 4 of 28 witnesses examined, the court rejected bail, finding them substantially influential in the locality with capacity to intimidate witnesses—evidenced by a prosecution witness already turning hostile. The court concluded their release would jeopardize the trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts