Bhaskar Mahato vs State of West Bengal Advocate - Biswarup Pattanaik As Ld PP — 195/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail

CNR: WBPU010004662026

Filing Number

381/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

195/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Purulia

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 22-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

33

Police Station

BARABAZAR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Bhaskar Mahato

    Adv. Prasenjit Mukherjee

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of West Bengal Advocate - Biswarup Pattanaik As Ld PP (Public Prosecutor)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Final OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Judge, Purulia granted anticipatory bail to accused Bhaskar Mahato in a criminal case involving charges under BNS sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 75(1)(ii), and 76. The court found material contradictions in the victim's statement, noted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and determined the accused was not properly served notice. The accused was released on a bond of Rs. 4,000 with two sureties of Rs. 2,000 each, subject to conditions against tampering with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 02-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge

  5. 24-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 195/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge, Purulia granted anticipatory bail to accused Bhaskar Mahato in a criminal case involving charges under BNS sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 75(1)(ii), and 76. The court found material contradictions in the victim's statement, noted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and determined the accused was not properly served notice. The accused was released on a bond of Rs. 4,000 with two sureties of Rs. 2,000 each, subject to conditions against tampering with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case