BALARAM GHOSH vs State Of West Bengal — 207/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBBB010005912026

Filing Number

390/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

207/2026

Registration Date

20-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Suri, Birbhum

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 14-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

411

Police Station

DUBRAJPUR

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BALARAM GHOSH

    Adv. KAUSTAV GUPTA

  2. 2.UTTAM MONDAL

  3. 3.BENIMADHAB MONDAL

  4. 4.ABHIJIT MONDAL

  5. 5.NILAY MONDAL

  6. 6.PURNA CHANDRA MONDAL

  7. 7.RANJIT BAURI

  8. 8.ARUN KUMAR MONDAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of West Bengal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Judge, Birbhum rejected the anticipatory bail application of eight petitioners under Section 482 of BNSS in a case involving charges under Sections 79, 329(3), 324(4)(5), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 109, and 3(5) of BNS. The court found sufficient material in the medical report to attract Section 109 BNS and ruled that granting bail would hamper the ongoing investigation, determining that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was necessary given the nature of the offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

    District Judge

  6. 20-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 20-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 207/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge, Birbhum rejected the anticipatory bail application of eight petitioners under Section 482 of BNSS in a case involving charges under Sections 79, 329(3), 324(4)(5), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 109, and 3(5) of BNS. The court found sufficient material in the medical report to attract Section 109 BNS and ruled that granting bail would hamper the ongoing investigation, determining that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was necessary given the nature of the offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case