STATE vs Samaresh Ghosh and 06 others — 675/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 448,341,323,325,354B,427,506,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 20th March 2026.
Gr Case
CNR: WBND130030422016
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
675/2016
Filing Date
18-04-2016
Registration No
675/2016
Registration Date
18-04-2016
Court
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat, Nadia
Judge
4-ACJM
Decision Date
20th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
110
Police Station
DHANTALA
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Samaresh Ghosh and 06 others
Hearing History
Judge: 4-ACJM
Disposed
Argument / Further Argument
Argument / Further Argument
Argument / Further Argument
Argument / Further Argument
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 19-03-2026 | Argument / Further Argument | |
| 10-03-2026 | Argument / Further Argument | |
| 20-01-2026 | Argument / Further Argument | |
| 28-11-2025 | Argument / Further Argument |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary Case: GR Case No. 675 of 2016, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat, Nadia (20 March 2026) Decision: All six accused persons (Samaresh Ghosh, Suman Ghosh, Rahul Ghosh, Bapi Ghosh, Indrajit Ghosh, and Deba Ghosh) were acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 448/341/325/354B/427/506/34. The court found significant contradictions and loopholes in the prosecution's evidence, including conflicting witness testimonies about the place of occurrence, the complainant's own admission of not witnessing the assault, and the failure of a key prosecution witness to support the case, ruling that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Summary Case: GR Case No. 675 of 2016, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat, Nadia (20 March 2026) Decision: All six accused persons (Samaresh Ghosh, Suman Ghosh, Rahul Ghosh, Bapi Ghosh, Indrajit Ghosh, and Deba Ghosh) were acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 448/341/325/354B/427/506/34. The court found significant contradictions and loopholes in the prosecution's evidence, including conflicting witness testimonies about the place of occurrence, the complainant's own admission of not witnessing the assault, and the failure of a key prosecution witness to support the case, ruling that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts