State of West Bengal vs Ansarul Ali Advocate - Saukat Ali — 158/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 85,80. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 20th April 2026.

Case disposed

Bail

CNR: WBML050002762026

Filing Number

235/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

158/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

Additional District Judge, Chanchal, Malda

Judge

1-ADJ

Decision Date

20-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

106

Police Station

CHANCHAL

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 85,80

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of West Bengal

    Adv. Chinmoy Mishra

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ansarul Ali Advocate - Saukat Ali

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Apr-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Additional Sessions Judge, Chanchal, Malda rejected the bail petition of accused Ansarul Ali under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with charges under Sections 85/80 of BNS. The court denied bail considering the nature and gravity of the offence and because investigation was still ongoing, despite the accused's counsel arguing prolonged detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

    ADJ

  5. 13-Apr-2026

    Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

    ADJ

  6. 06-Apr-2026

    Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

    ADJ

  7. 30-Mar-2026

    Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

    ADJ

  8. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

    ADJ

  9. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 158/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Judge, Chanchal, Malda rejected the bail petition of accused Ansarul Ali under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with charges under Sections 85/80 of BNS. The court denied bail considering the nature and gravity of the offence and because investigation was still ongoing, despite the accused's counsel arguing prolonged detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case