ROJINA KHATUN AND ANOTHER vs WEST BENGAL GOVERNMENT Advocate - P.P. — 136/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc Case

CNR: WBDD010004052026

Filing Number

295/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

136/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Balurghat

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 30-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

53

Police Station

HARIRAMPUR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROJINA KHATUN AND ANOTHER

    Adv. UMAR FARUK ISLAM

  2. 2.BADIR SEKH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.WEST BENGAL GOVERNMENT Advocate - P.P.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 136/2026 The Sessions Court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by accused-petitioners Rojina Khatun and Badir Sekh under Section 482 BNSS. The court found direct allegations against the petitioners in the case diary regarding charges under Sections 126(2), 117(2), 118(2), 109, and 303(2) BNS. The case involved conflicting narratives between the petitioner (alleging rape) and the accused's wife (lodging a counter-case), but the court determined sufficient material evidence existed against the accused to reject bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 136/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 136/2026 The Sessions Court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by accused-petitioners Rojina Khatun and Badir Sekh under Section 482 BNSS. The court found direct allegations against the petitioners in the case diary regarding charges under Sections 126(2), 117(2), 118(2), 109, and 303(2) BNS. The case involved conflicting narratives between the petitioner (alleging rape) and the accused's wife (lodging a counter-case), but the court determined sufficient material evidence existed against the accused to reject bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case