State of West Bengal vs Prasenjit Bauri — 306/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),351(2),79. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 18th March 2026.
Gr Case
CNR: WBPU060004952025
e-Filing Number
19-05-2025
Filing Number
492/2025
Filing Date
19-05-2025
Registration No
306/2025
Registration Date
19-05-2025
Court
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur, Purulia
Judge
5-ACJM II
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
139
Police Station
SANTALDIH
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of West Bengal
Adv. APP In charge
Respondent(s)
Prasenjit Bauri
Hearing History
Judge: 5-ACJM II
Disposed
Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C |
| 05-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 29-08-2025 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 306/2025 Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Raghunathpur acquitted Prasenjit Bauri of charges under BNS sections 126(2)/351(2)/79 (obstruction, criminal intimidation, and abuse). The court found insufficient evidence, noting that supporting witnesses contradicted the complainant's account—particularly the mother-in-law who admitted during cross-examination that a scuffle occurred between the complainant and her own son, not the accused. The court held that relying solely on the complainant's testimony, compounded by new details about Facebook messages not mentioned in the FIR, was unsafe for conviction beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case 306/2025 Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Raghunathpur acquitted Prasenjit Bauri of charges under BNS sections 126(2)/351(2)/79 (obstruction, criminal intimidation, and abuse). The court found insufficient evidence, noting that supporting witnesses contradicted the complainant's account—particularly the mother-in-law who admitted during cross-examination that a scuffle occurred between the complainant and her own son, not the accused. The court held that relying solely on the complainant's testimony, compounded by new details about Facebook messages not mentioned in the FIR, was unsafe for conviction 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