SAIDUL KHAN vs State Of West Bengal — 228/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 24th March 2026.
Criminal Misc.
CNR: WBBB010006612026
Filing Number
437/2026
Filing Date
26-Feb-2026
Registration No
228/2026
Registration Date
26-Feb-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge, Suri, Birbhum
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 29-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
514
Police Station
RAMPURHAT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SAIDUL KHAN
Adv. SUJAN DUTTA
Respondent(s)
-
1.State Of West Bengal
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Copy of Order
Case Summary: 228/2026 Decision: The Sessions Judge rejected Saidul Khan's anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS in connection with Rampurhat PS case No. 514 of 2025 (involving charges under BNS Sections 85/89/109(1)/3(5) and DP Act Sections 3/4). Reasoning: After examining the case diary and records, the court found direct serious incriminating material against the petitioner. Considering the nature of the offence, the court determined bail was inappropriate and declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail despite arguments that he was falsely implicated, other co-accused were on bail, and a chargesheet had been filed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Copy of Order
-
16-Mar-2026
Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition
District Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
26-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 228/2026
Case Summary: 228/2026 Decision: The Sessions Judge rejected Saidul Khan's anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS in connection with Rampurhat PS case No. 514 of 2025 (involving charges under BNS Sections 85/89/109(1)/3(5) and DP Act Sections 3/4). Reasoning: After examining the case diary and records, the court found direct serious incriminating material against the petitioner. Considering the nature of the offence, the court determined bail was inappropriate and declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail despite arguments that he was falsely implicated, other co-accused were on bail, and a chargesheet had been filed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts