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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),351(2),79

Petitioner(s)

State of West Bengal

Adv. APP In charge

Respondent(s)

Prasenjit Bauri

Hearing History

Judge: 5-ACJM II

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

18-03-2026
Daliy Order
18-03-2026
Daliy Order

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

29-08-2025
Daliy Order
13-03-2026
Daliy Order
casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur, Purulia All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case