Bikash Rava vs State Of West Bengal Advocate - P.P Cooch Behar — 308/2026
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 438. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 13th March 2026.
Bail Petition
CNR: WBCB010005462026
Filing Number
450/2026
Filing Date
26-02-2026
Registration No
308/2026
Registration Date
26-02-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge, Coochbehar
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
287
Police Station
BAXIRHAT
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bikash Rava
Adv. Utpal Kumar Pal
Respondent(s)
State Of West Bengal Advocate - P.P Cooch Behar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Bail Petition No. 308/2026 Decision: The Sessions Judge rejected Bikash Rava's anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Reasoning: Rava, the husband of the deceased victim, was identified as the principal accused in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty), 306 (abetment of suicide), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention). After reviewing the charge sheet, post-mortem report, inquest report, and witness statements in the case diary, the court found material evidence of Rava's involvement in the alleged offense. Given the gravity of the charges and the strength of incriminating materials, the court determined that custodial trial was necessary and bail was inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Bail Petition No. 308/2026 Decision: The Sessions Judge rejected Bikash Rava's anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Reasoning: Rava, the husband of the deceased victim, was identified as the principal accused in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty), 306 (abetment of suicide), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention). After reviewing the charge sheet, post-mortem report, inquest report, and witness statements in the case diary, the court found material evidence of Rava's involvement in the alleged offense. Given the gravity of the charges and the strength of incriminating materials, the court determined that custodial trial was necessary and bail was inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts