STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs ROSHAN KUMAR Advocate - HIRU KUMAR NASKAR — 431/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

1.Criminal Misc. - Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBHW010011532026

Filing Number

675/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

431/2026

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

105

Police Station

DOMJUR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF WEST BENGAL

    Adv. SOMNATH BANERJEE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ROSHAN KUMAR Advocate - HIRU KUMAR NASKAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Final OrderView PDF

    Summary The Sessions Judge, Howrah rejected accused Roshan Kumar's bail application under Section 483 BNSS in a case involving allegations under Sections 79/64(2) BNS. The court found that while the complaint lacked a specific incident date, this alone did not warrant bail. The court primarily rejected bail citing risk of witness intimidation or tampering, as potential witnesses were likely coworkers at the accused's workplace where he held a supervisory position. 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. 431/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Judge, Howrah rejected accused Roshan Kumar's bail application under Section 483 BNSS in a case involving allegations under Sections 79/64(2) BNS. The court found that while the complaint lacked a specific incident date, this alone did not warrant bail. The court primarily rejected bail citing risk of witness intimidation or tampering, as potential witnesses were likely coworkers at the accused's workplace where he held a supervisory position. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case