BIPLAB BARMAN AND 04 ORS vs WEST BENGAL GOVERNMENT Advocate - P.P. — 167/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc Case

CNR: WBDD010004942026

Filing Number

362/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

167/2026

Registration Date

17-Mar-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Balurghat

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 27-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

35

Police Station

Patiram

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BIPLAB BARMAN AND 04 ORS

    Adv. Krishnadas Das

  2. 2.KAMAL BARMAN

  3. 3.BABU BARMAN

  4. 4.DOLI BARMAN

  5. 5.KACHO BARMAN

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Judge allowed anticipatory bail for five accused persons (Biplab Barman, Kamal Barman, Babu Barman, Doli Barman, and Kacho Barman) in a case involving alleged attempted murder by strangulation. The court found the investigation incomplete, noted the dispute involved landed property with no evidence tampering risk, and determined no custodial interrogation was necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 167/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge allowed anticipatory bail for five accused persons (Biplab Barman, Kamal Barman, Babu Barman, Doli Barman, and Kacho Barman) in a case involving alleged attempted murder by strangulation. The court found the investigation incomplete, noted the dispute involved landed property with no evidence tampering risk, and determined no custodial interrogation was necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case