State of West Bengal vs Faruk Sk alias Faruk Sekh and 2 others Advocate - Debanjan Dutta — 625/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191/2,221,132. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail

CNR: WBML010011892026

Filing Number

922/2026

Filing Date

21-Feb-2026

Registration No

625/2026

Registration Date

21-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Malda

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 14-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

172

Police Station

BAISHNABNAGAR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191/2,221,132

Petitioner(s)

1.State of West Bengal

Adv. Asit Baran Basu

Respondent(s)

1.Faruk Sk alias Faruk Sekh and 2 others Advocate - Debanjan Dutta

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
11-Mar-2026

Copy of OrderView PDF

Summary: The Sessions Judge, Malda rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by three petitioners (Faruk Sk., Rintu Sk., and Rakim Sk.) under Section 482 BNSS in connection with a case involving allegations of hooliganism and attack on police personnel during a narcotic substance arrest. The court found the case serious and the materials on record sufficient to warrant rejection, holding it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail considering the social impact of the alleged offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
11-Mar-2026

Disposed

District and Sessions Judge
21-Feb-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
21-Feb-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 625/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Sessions Judge, Malda rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by three petitioners (Faruk Sk., Rintu Sk., and Rakim Sk.) under Section 482 BNSS in connection with a case involving allegations of hooliganism and attack on police personnel during a narcotic substance arrest. The court found the case serious and the materials on record sufficient to warrant rejection, holding it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail considering the social impact of the alleged offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.