SANTOSH GHOSH vs State Of West Bengal — 124/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED/Granted on 06th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBBB010003462026

Filing Number

237/2026

Filing Date

02-Feb-2026

Registration No

124/2026

Registration Date

02-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Suri, Birbhum

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

06-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED/Granted

Last updated 14-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANTOSH GHOSH

    Adv. KOUSHIK ACHARYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of West Bengal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Judge, Birbhum granted anticipatory bail to Santosh Ghosh in a criminal case involving charges under BNS sections 329(4), 109, 115(2), 351(2), and 3(5). The court found that investigation had stalled since January 16, 2026, the collected material did not prima facie establish the requisite intention for section 109, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and no risk of absconding or evidence tampering existed. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted bail of Rs. 3,000 with two sureties of Rs. 1,500 each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 19-Feb-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

  5. 19-Feb-2026

    Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

    District Judge

  6. 19-Feb-2026

    Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

    District Judge

  7. 02-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 02-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 124/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge, Birbhum granted anticipatory bail to Santosh Ghosh in a criminal case involving charges under BNS sections 329(4), 109, 115(2), 351(2), and 3(5). The court found that investigation had stalled since January 16, 2026, the collected material did not prima facie establish the requisite intention for section 109, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and no risk of absconding or evidence tampering existed. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted bail of Rs. 3,000 with two sureties of Rs. 1,500 each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case