STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs PALASH SEN AND ANOTHER Advocate - KUSHAL ROY — 384/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th March 2026.
1.Criminal Misc. - Criminal Misc.
CNR: WBHW010010032026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
601/2026
Filing Date
19-02-2026
Registration No
384/2026
Registration Date
19-02-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge, Howrah
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
30
Police Station
JAGACHA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Adv. SOMNATH BANERJEE
Respondent(s)
PALASH SEN AND ANOTHER Advocate - KUSHAL ROY
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Disposed
Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition
Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 02-03-2026 | Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition | |
| 19-02-2026 | Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Howrah Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to accused Palash Sen and Priyanka Banerjee in a theft case, finding the FIR was filed with significant delay (over a month after the alleged incident) and noting that the complainant had previously filed an FIR against them, suggesting possible counter-allegations. The court imposed stringent conditions including a Rs. 5,000 bond with sureties, availability for police interrogation, and a prohibition on witness tampering, holding that these safeguards adequately protect the investigation without requiring custodial detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The Howrah Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to accused Palash Sen and Priyanka Banerjee in a theft case, finding the FIR was filed with significant delay (over a month after the alleged incident) and noting that the complainant had previously filed an FIR against them, suggesting possible counter-allegations. The court imposed stringent conditions including a Rs. 5,000 bond with sureties, availability for police interrogation, and a prohibition on witness tampering, holding that these safeguards adequately protect the investigation without requiring custodial detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts