Majinur Rahman vs State Of West Bengal Advocate - P.P Cooch Behar — 405/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 18th April 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Petition

CNR: WBCB010007072026

Filing Number

587/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

405/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Coochbehar

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

18-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

109

Police Station

TUFANGANJ

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Majinur Rahman

    Adv. Shah Nawaz Ahmed

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    Final OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 405/2026 The Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar rejected Majinur Rahman's anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for charges under the Election Commission Act, 1955 and related provisions. The court found sufficient incriminating material in the case diary, particularly a seizure list of kerosene oil, establishing the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offense. Considering the gravity of the charges and necessity for custodial interrogation, the bail prayer was denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 06-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  7. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 405/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 405/2026 The Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar rejected Majinur Rahman's anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for charges under the Election Commission Act, 1955 and related provisions. The court found sufficient incriminating material in the case diary, particularly a seizure list of kerosene oil, establishing the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offense. Considering the gravity of the charges and necessity for custodial interrogation, the bail prayer was denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case