Govt of West Bengal vs BIKASH SARKAR — 700/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,2323,325,427,506. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 10th April 2026.
Gr Case
CNR: WBCB070010672023
Filing Number
700/2023
Filing Date
30-Nov-2023
Registration No
700/2023
Registration Date
30-Jun-2025
Court
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dinhata, Coochbehar
Judge
3-Acjm
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 06-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
664
Police Station
DINHATA
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt of West Bengal
Adv. APPDinhata
Respondent(s)
-
1.BIKASH SARKAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
Copy of orderView PDF
-
10-Apr-2026
JudgementView PDF
Summary of Case 700/2023 The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dinhata acquitted Bikash Sarkar of charges under IPC sections 341/323/325/427/506 (wrongful restraint, assault, and criminal intimidation) due to insufficient prosecution evidence. The key witness—the de facto complainant—testified the case arose from a misunderstanding now resolved and expressed no objection to acquittal, while her husband stated he didn't know why the complaint was filed. The court found the prosecution failed to prove even the FIR's contents, resulting in acquittal under CrPC Section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Apr-2026
Disposed
Acjm
-
13-Mar-2026
Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C
Acjm
-
06-Mar-2026
Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C
Acjm
-
17-Feb-2026
Copy of orderView PDF
-
17-Feb-2026
Evidence
Acjm
-
29-Oct-2025
Executionof W.A/Wpa
Acjm
-
24-Sep-2025
Copy of orderView PDF
-
24-Sep-2025
Appearance
Acjm
-
18-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Nov-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 700/2023
Summary of Case 700/2023 The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dinhata acquitted Bikash Sarkar of charges under IPC sections 341/323/325/427/506 (wrongful restraint, assault, and criminal intimidation) due to insufficient prosecution evidence. The key witness—the de facto complainant—testified the case arose from a misunderstanding now resolved and expressed no objection to acquittal, while her husband stated he didn't know why the complaint was filed. The court found the prosecution failed to prove even the FIR's contents, resulting in acquittal under CrPC Section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts