BHABATOSH BARMAN ANKUR BARMAN vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — CRM(A)/290/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 21st May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCJ0019452026
Next Hearing
18th May 2026
Filing Number
CRM(A)/297/2026
Filing Date
14-05-2026
Registration No
CRM(A)/290/2026
Registration Date
15-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP C (CRIMINAL MATTERS) ( 3 )
Sub-Category
Anticipatory Bail ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL SECTION
Decision Date
21st May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BHABATOSH BARMAN ANKUR BARMAN
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-05-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL |
| 21-05-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL |
| 19-05-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL |
Orders
Case Summary: CRM(A) 290/2026 The Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench, Jalpaiguri) rejected Bhabotosh Barman's anticipatory bail application in connection with Mathabhanga Police Station Case No. 212 of 2026, involving charges under Sections 126(2)/117(2)/118(2)/109/351/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court found that although the victim sustained simple injuries to the face, nose, skin, and scalp, custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary to ascertain whether a weapon was used. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CRM(A) 290/2026 The Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench, Jalpaiguri) rejected Bhabotosh Barman's anticipatory bail application in connection with Mathabhanga Police Station Case No. 212 of 2026, involving charges under Sections 126(2)/117(2)/118(2)/109/351/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court found that although the victim sustained simple injuries to the face, nose, skin, and scalp, custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary to ascertain whether a weapon was used. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts