BIDYUT BAGDI vs State Of West Bengal — 276/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 08th April 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBBB010007632026

Filing Number

513/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

276/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Suri, Birbhum

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

08-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 22-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

69

Police Station

MOLLARPUR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BIDYUT BAGDI

    Adv. MD. ASHABUDDIN

  2. 2.RABIN BAGDI ALIAS NABIN BAGDI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of West Bengal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Apr-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary The Sessions Judge, Birbhum rejected the anticipatory bail application of Bidyut Bagdi and Rabin Bagdi under Section 482 of BNSS in a case involving charges under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), and 3(5) of BNS. The court found that medical reports confirmed injuries consistent with the alleged offence, investigation was ongoing, and granting bail would hamper the investigation process; therefore, custodial interrogation was deemed necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

    District Judge

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 276/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Judge, Birbhum rejected the anticipatory bail application of Bidyut Bagdi and Rabin Bagdi under Section 482 of BNSS in a case involving charges under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), and 3(5) of BNS. The court found that medical reports confirmed injuries consistent with the alleged offence, investigation was ongoing, and granting bail would hamper the investigation process; therefore, custodial interrogation was deemed necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case