Bijoy Krishna Das vs State Of West Bengal Advocate - P.P Cooch Behar — 403/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Petition

CNR: WBCB010007042026

Filing Number

585/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

403/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Coochbehar

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

Police Station

TUFANGANJ

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

1.Bijoy Krishna Das

Adv. Sunil Das
2.Subhankar Das

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
09-Apr-2026

Final OrderView PDF

The Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to Bijoy Krishna Das (petitioner No. 1) at ₹4,000 with two sureties of ₹2,000 each, finding insufficient evidence against him in the case diary. However, the court rejected anticipatory bail for Subhankar Das (petitioner No. 2), finding sufficient materials in the injury report and witness statements showing his involvement in the alleged offence under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 110, 303(2), and 351(2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
09-Apr-2026

Disposed

District and Sessions Judge
06-Apr-2026

OrderView PDF
06-Apr-2026

Hearing

District and Sessions Judge
13-Mar-2026

OrderView PDF
13-Mar-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
13-Mar-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 403/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to Bijoy Krishna Das (petitioner No. 1) at ₹4,000 with two sureties of ₹2,000 each, finding insufficient evidence against him in the case diary. However, the court rejected anticipatory bail for Subhankar Das (petitioner No. 2), finding sufficient materials in the injury report and witness statements showing his involvement in the alleged offence under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 110, 303(2), and 351(2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.