Prasenjit Sarkar alise Prasenjit Sarkar vs State of West Bengal — 241/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBEM010012322026

Filing Number

726/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

241/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Tamluk

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

94

Police Station

PURBA MEDINIPUR PANSKURA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Prasenjit Sarkar alise Prasenjit Sarkar

    Adv. PALASH PATTANAYAK

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of West Bengal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur rejected the anticipatory bail application of Prasenjit Sarkar in a criminal case involving charges under BNS sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 61(2), 3(5) and the Arms Act. Although the petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated and not connected to the alleged incident (which primarily involved accused Sintu Senapati), the court found that money had been transferred to the petitioner's account from the complainant's account, and considered the nature and gravity of the offence along with statements recorded during investigation, leading to the rejection of bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 27-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

  5. 27-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 241/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur rejected the anticipatory bail application of Prasenjit Sarkar in a criminal case involving charges under BNS sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 61(2), 3(5) and the Arms Act. Although the petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated and not connected to the alleged incident (which primarily involved accused Sintu Senapati), the court found that money had been transferred to the petitioner's account from the complainant's account, and considered the nature and gravity of the offence along with statements recorded during investigation, leading to the rejection of 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