Royel Sk vs State of West Bengal — 1256/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th April 2026.
Criminal Misc.
CNR: WBMD010022422026
Filing Number
1930/2026
Filing Date
13-03-2026
Registration No
1256/2026
Registration Date
13-03-2026
Court
Disrtrict and Sessions Judge, Berhampore Civil
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
856
Police Station
RAGHUNATHGANJ
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Royel Sk
Adv. ARIF HASAN
Respondent(s)
State of West Bengal
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 13-03-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Royel Sk v. State of West Bengal (1256/2026) The Sessions Court, Murshidabad rejected anticipatory bail applications filed by two accused persons charged under Arms Act sections 25(1)(a)/35 for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The court rejected Royel Sk's application as not maintainable after his advocate withdrew it, citing an earlier rejection. For co-accused Mehedi Hasan, the court rejected the anticipatory bail petition on grounds that the investigation was ongoing and custodial interrogation remained necessary given the serious nature of the offense involving multiple firearms. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Royel Sk v. State of West Bengal (1256/2026) The Sessions Court, Murshidabad rejected anticipatory bail applications filed by two accused persons charged under Arms Act sections 25(1)(a)/35 for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The court rejected Royel Sk's application as not maintainable after his advocate withdrew it, citing an earlier rejection. For co-accused Mehedi Hasan, the court rejected the anticipatory bail petition on grounds that the investigation was ongoing and custodial interrogation remained necessary given the serious nature of the offense involving multiple firearms. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts