State of West Bengal vs Chhoton Ghosh alias Sumit Ghosh and 02 ors. Advocate - Subham Kr. Das — 683/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 329(4),115(2),117(2),118(1),118(2),303(2),324(4)351(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail

CNR: WBML010012772026

Filing Number

998/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

683/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Malda

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

169

Police Station

ENGLISH BAZAR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 329(4),115(2),117(2),118(1),118(2),303(2),324(4)351(2),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

1.State of West Bengal

Adv. Asit Baran Basu

Respondent(s)

1.Chhoton Ghosh alias Sumit Ghosh and 02 ors. Advocate - Subham Kr. Das

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
16-Mar-2026

Copy of OrderView PDF

Case 683/2026 Summary: The Sessions Judge, Malda rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Chhoton Ghosh, Rintu Mandal, and Rqambilash Sahani under Section 482 BNSS in connection with English Bazar P.S. Case No. 169/2026 involving charges of physical assault. After reviewing injury reports and witness statements, the court found the allegations serious and determined it was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail, as doing so would prejudice the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
16-Mar-2026

Disposed

District and Sessions Judge
25-Feb-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
25-Feb-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 683/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 683/2026 Summary: The Sessions Judge, Malda rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Chhoton Ghosh, Rintu Mandal, and Rqambilash Sahani under Section 482 BNSS in connection with English Bazar P.S. Case No. 169/2026 involving charges of physical assault. After reviewing injury reports and witness statements, the court found the allegations serious and determined it was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail, as doing so would prejudice the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.