SUSMITA SARKAR KARMAKAR AND ANOTHER vs WEST BENGAL GOVERNMENT Advocate - P.P. — 141/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc Case

CNR: WBDD010004182026

Filing Number

306/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

141/2026

Registration Date

06-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

34

Police Station

BALURGHAT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUSMITA SARKAR KARMAKAR AND ANOTHER

    Adv. UJJWAL KUMAR DEY

  2. 2.TANUSREE SARKAR

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: The Sessions Judge rejected the bail application of two sisters, Susmita Sarkar Karmakar and Tanusree Sarkar, accused under Section 108/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in connection with a case involving a matrimonial dispute and alleged involvement of the accused. The court found sufficient material involvement in the alleged offense to deny bail, despite arguments regarding false implication and prolonged custody since January 20, 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 141/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The Sessions Judge rejected the bail application of two sisters, Susmita Sarkar Karmakar and Tanusree Sarkar, accused under Section 108/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in connection with a case involving a matrimonial dispute and alleged involvement of the accused. The court found sufficient material involvement in the alleged offense to deny bail, despite arguments regarding false implication and prolonged custody since January 20, 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case