TUMPA LATUA vs STATE — 20/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBEM050002502026

Filing Number

109/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

20/2026

Registration Date

17-Mar-2026

Court

Additional District Judge, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

Judge

1-ADJ

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TUMPA LATUA

    Adv. SUKHENDU PATTANAYEK

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Copy of Order

    Case Summary: Criminal Misc. Case No. 20/2026 Decision: Tumpa Latua's bail application was rejected. The court found the allegations grave—that she murdered a one-year-eight-month-old child whose body was found in a pond and subsequently buried to conceal the offense. The investigation remained incomplete with the post-mortem report uncollected and two co-accused still absconding. Key Reasoning: While rejecting bail, the court criticized the investigating officer for negligent investigation, lack of substantial progress since January 22, 2026, failure to collect crucial evidence (post-mortem report), and reliance solely on family members' statements rather than independent witnesses. The court directed the Superintendent of Police to reassign the case to a competent officer and expedite investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 20/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Misc. Case No. 20/2026 Decision: Tumpa Latua's bail application was rejected. The court found the allegations grave—that she murdered a one-year-eight-month-old child whose body was found in a pond and subsequently buried to conceal the offense. The investigation remained incomplete with the post-mortem report uncollected and two co-accused still absconding. Key Reasoning: While rejecting bail, the court criticized the investigating officer for negligent investigation, lack of substantial progress since January 22, 2026, failure to collect crucial evidence (post-mortem report), and reliance solely on family members' statements rather than independent witnesses. The court directed the Superintendent of Police to reassign the case to a competent officer and expedite investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case