Hafijul Haque alias Hafijul Rahaman alias Hapijul Haque vs State Of West Bengal Advocate - P.P Cooch Behar — 234/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Petition

CNR: WBCB010004432026

Filing Number

361/2026

Filing Date

18-Feb-2026

Registration No

234/2026

Registration Date

18-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Coochbehar

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

17

Police Station

BAXIRHAT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Hafijul Haque alias Hafijul Rahaman alias Hapijul Haque

    Adv. Utpal Kumar Pal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of West Bengal Advocate - P.P Cooch Behar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    Final OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Judge at Cooch Behar granted anticipatory bail to Hafijul Haque in a case involving charges under sections 137(2), 140(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court found that since the accused cooperated during investigation, complied with the notice under section 35(3) of BNSS, and was not arrested by the investigating officer, custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Bail was set at ₹4,000 with two sureties of ₹2,000 each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  6. 18-Feb-2026

    OrderView PDF

  7. 18-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 18-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 234/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge at Cooch Behar granted anticipatory bail to Hafijul Haque in a case involving charges under sections 137(2), 140(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court found that since the accused cooperated during investigation, complied with the notice under section 35(3) of BNSS, and was not arrested by the investigating officer, custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Bail was set at ₹4,000 with two sureties of ₹2,000 each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case