KUSHU PRAMANIK vs State Of West Bengal — 190/2026

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

Case disposed

Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBBB010005242026

Filing Number

356/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

190/2026

Registration Date

16-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Suri, Birbhum

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

06-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 14-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KUSHU PRAMANIK

    Adv. SATYENDRANATH DAS

  2. 2.NAGARDIP PRAMANIK ALIAS NAGAR PRAMANIK

  3. 3.BISWAJIT RAJMALLA ALIAS BISHU RAJMALLA

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 rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by three petitioners (Kushu Pramanik, Nagardip Pramanik, and Biswajit Rajmalla) under Section 482 of BNSS in connection with a case involving charges under Sections 137(2)/140(3)/3(5) of BNS. The court found that since the 17-year-old victim remains unrecovered and investigation is ongoing, granting bail could hamper the investigation, and the nature of the offense warranted custodial interrogation of the petitioners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 16-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 190/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge, Birbhum rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by three petitioners (Kushu Pramanik, Nagardip Pramanik, and Biswajit Rajmalla) under Section 482 of BNSS in connection with a case involving charges under Sections 137(2)/140(3)/3(5) of BNS. The court found that since the 17-year-old victim remains unrecovered and investigation is ongoing, granting bail could hamper the investigation, and the nature of the offense warranted custodial interrogation of the petitioners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case