TUksarul Sk vs State of West Bengal — 1250/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBMD010022362026

Filing Number

1924/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

1250/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Court

Disrtrict and Sessions Judge, Berhampore Civil

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

515

Police Station

KANDI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TUksarul Sk

    Adv. subir kumar dutta

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of West Bengal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Judge, Murshidabad rejected Tuksarul Sk's anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS in an Arms Act case (Kandi P.S. Case No. 515/2025). Despite the defence counsel's argument that a co-accused received bail and the petitioner was falsely implicated, the court found the gravity of the offence and the petitioner's naming in the FIR made it unfit to grant pre-arrest bail, particularly given that a co-accused's similar bail prayer had already been denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 16-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge

  6. 30-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  7. 30-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1250/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge, Murshidabad rejected Tuksarul Sk's anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS in an Arms Act case (Kandi P.S. Case No. 515/2025). Despite the defence counsel's argument that a co-accused received bail and the petitioner was falsely implicated, the court found the gravity of the offence and the petitioner's naming in the FIR made it unfit to grant pre-arrest bail, particularly given that a co-accused's similar bail prayer had already been denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case