SAKIRUL SK vs State of West Bengal Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OR APP — 985/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBMD010018182026

Filing Number

1560/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

985/2026

Registration Date

26-Feb-2026

Court

Disrtrict and Sessions Judge, Berhampore Civil

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

97

Police Station

BERHAMPORE

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAKIRUL SK

    Adv. KABIRUL ISLAM BISWAS

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Judge, Murshidabad rejected Sakirul Sk's bail application under section 483 of BNSS in a case involving charges under sections 179/180/3(5) of BNS and 25(1-B)(a)/35 of Arms Act. The court found sufficient prima facie incriminating materials against the accused, including recovery of live ammunition, and held that detention was necessary as the investigation was ongoing and the charge sheet had not yet been submitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  7. 07-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge

  8. 26-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 26-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 985/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge, Murshidabad rejected Sakirul Sk's bail application under section 483 of BNSS in a case involving charges under sections 179/180/3(5) of BNS and 25(1-B)(a)/35 of Arms Act. The court found sufficient prima facie incriminating materials against the accused, including recovery of live ammunition, and held that detention was necessary as the investigation was ongoing and the charge sheet had not yet been submitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case