Bappi Barman vs State Of West Bengal Advocate - P.P Cooch Behar — 315/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Petition

CNR: WBCB010005572026

Filing Number

461/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

315/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Coochbehar

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

124

Police Station

MATHABHANGA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Bappi Barman

    Adv. Mamotaj Parvin

  2. 2.Kshitin Barman

  3. 3.Nirati Barman

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    Final OrderView PDF

    Case 315/2026 Summary The Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Bappi Barman, Kshitin Barman, and Nirati Barman in connection with Mathabhanga P.S. Case No. 124/2026 involving charges under sections 329(3), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 74, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. After reviewing the case diary, injury report, and witness statements, the court found sufficient material evidence of all three petitioners' involvement in the alleged offence and refused bail citing the gravity of the offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 315/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 315/2026 Summary The Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Bappi Barman, Kshitin Barman, and Nirati Barman in connection with Mathabhanga P.S. Case No. 124/2026 involving charges under sections 329(3), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 74, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. After reviewing the case diary, injury report, and witness statements, the court found sufficient material evidence of all three petitioners' involvement in the alleged offence and refused bail citing the gravity of the offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case