Umesh Chowdhury @ Hania @ Shuvo vs State of West - Bengal — 167/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBBK010004602026

Filing Number

297/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

167/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

Disrtrict and Sessions Judge, Bankura

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 21-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

28

Police Station

BARJORA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Umesh Chowdhury @ Hania @ Shuvo

    Adv. Maheswar Das

  2. 2.Radheshyam Mahato @ Sonu

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of West - Bengal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Judge, Bankura rejected the bail application filed by accused Umesh Chowdhury and Radheshyam Mahato under Section 483 of BNSS in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 310(4)/310(5)/111/112/61(2) of BNS. The court found prima facie incriminating materials against both accused, noted that one accused had previous criminal antecedents, and observed that not all accused persons had been arrested, warranting their continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

    District Judge

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 167/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge, Bankura rejected the bail application filed by accused Umesh Chowdhury and Radheshyam Mahato under Section 483 of BNSS in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 310(4)/310(5)/111/112/61(2) of BNS. The court found prima facie incriminating materials against both accused, noted that one accused had previous criminal antecedents, and observed that not all accused persons had been arrested, warranting their continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case