BALARAM GHOSH vs State Of West Bengal — 207/2026

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

Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBBB010005912026

Case disposed

Filing Number

390/2026

Filing Date

20-02-2026

Registration No

207/2026

Registration Date

20-02-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Suri, Birbhum

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

17th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

411

Police Station

DUBRAJPUR

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

BALARAM GHOSH

Adv. KAUSTAV GUPTA

UTTAM MONDAL

BENIMADHAB MONDAL

ABHIJIT MONDAL

NILAY MONDAL

PURNA CHANDRA MONDAL

RANJIT BAURI

ARUN KUMAR MONDAL

Respondent(s)

State Of West Bengal

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Judge

17-03-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

20-02-2026

Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

Final Orders / Judgements

17-03-2026
Copy of Order

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.

Interim Orders

11-03-2026
Copy of Order
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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Judge, Suri, Birbhum All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case