MUKTAR MONDAL vs State of West Bengal Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OR APP — 909/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 06th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBMD010016772026

Filing Number

1438/2026

Filing Date

21-Feb-2026

Registration No

909/2026

Registration Date

21-Feb-2026

Court

Disrtrict and Sessions Judge, Berhampore Civil

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

06-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 09-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MUKTAR MONDAL

    Adv. Golam Kibriya Mondal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of West Bengal Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OR APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Sessions Court, Murshidabad rejected the bail application of accused Muktar Mandal under Section 483 of BNSS. After examining the FIR, witness statements, medical documents, and post-mortem report, the court found the nature of allegations and specific overt acts attributed to the accused warranted continued detention. The court found it was not a fit case for bail despite the charge sheet being filed and some co-accused receiving bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    OrderView PDF

  7. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge

  8. 21-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 21-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 909/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Sessions Court, Murshidabad rejected the bail application of accused Muktar Mandal under Section 483 of BNSS. After examining the FIR, witness statements, medical documents, and post-mortem report, the court found the nature of allegations and specific overt acts attributed to the accused warranted continued detention. The court found it was not a fit case for bail despite the charge sheet being filed and some co-accused receiving bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case