STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs SALAHAR BEGUM AND 6 ORS Advocate - SAZID KHAN — 427/2026

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

Case disposed

1.Criminal Misc. - Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBHW010011432026

Filing Number

670/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

427/2026

Registration Date

26-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Howrah

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 03-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

97

Police Station

BAGNAN

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF WEST BENGAL

    Adv. SOMNATH BANERJEE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SALAHAR BEGUM AND 6 ORS Advocate - SAZID KHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Final OrderView PDF

    Summary The Sessions Judge, Howrah, rejected the anticipatory bail applications of all seven accused petitioners in a case involving serious injuries caused to the victim. The court found that medical evidence and photographs established grave injuries, the FIR indicated prior coordination among the accused, and custodial detention was necessary for complete investigation; the court held that accused persons acting in furtherance of common intention cannot evade liability by claiming individual non-involvement in specific acts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 26-Feb-2026

    General OrdersView PDF

  5. 26-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 427/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Judge, Howrah, rejected the anticipatory bail applications of all seven accused petitioners in a case involving serious injuries caused to the victim. The court found that medical evidence and photographs established grave injuries, the FIR indicated prior coordination among the accused, and custodial detention was necessary for complete investigation; the court held that accused persons acting in furtherance of common intention cannot evade liability by claiming individual non-involvement in specific acts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case