STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs HASINOOR RAHAMAN ALIAS SK HASINUR RAHAMAN AND ANOTHER Advocate - MONJUR ELAHI — 465/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 19th March 2026.
1.Criminal Misc. - Criminal Misc.
CNR: WBHW010012402026
Filing Number
716/2026
Filing Date
05-03-2026
Registration No
465/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge, Howrah
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
28
Police Station
JOYPUR
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Adv. SOMNATH BANERJEE
Respondent(s)
HASINOOR RAHAMAN ALIAS SK HASINUR RAHAMAN AND ANOTHER Advocate - MONJUR ELAHI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Disposed
Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition
Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition
Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition |
| 13-03-2026 | Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition |
| 05-03-2026 | Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Cr. Misc. Case No. 465/2026 The Howrah Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to two accused (Hasinoor Rahaman and Ainal Molla) in a matrimonial dispute case involving allegations of dowry harassment and assault. The court found the case essentially stemmed from marital differences, noted absence of medical evidence despite assault claims, and observed the Supreme Court's concerns about misuse of Section 85 BNS to implicate multiple family members. Bail was granted on condition of furnishing bonds and availability for interrogation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Cr. Misc. Case No. 465/2026 The Howrah Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to two accused (Hasinoor Rahaman and Ainal Molla) in a matrimonial dispute case involving allegations of dowry harassment and assault. The court found the case essentially stemmed from marital differences, noted absence of medical evidence despite assault claims, and observed the Supreme Court's concerns about misuse of Section 85 BNS to implicate multiple family members. Bail was granted on condition of furnishing bonds and availability for interrogation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts