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-May-2025
Registration No
306/2025
Registration Date
19-May-2025
Court
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur, Purulia
Judge
5-Acjm II
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 31-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
139
Police Station
SANTALDIH
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of West Bengal
Adv. APP In charge
Respondent(s)
-
1.Prasenjit Bauri
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
Daliy OrderView PDF
-
18-Mar-2026
Daliy OrderView PDF
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.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
Acjm II
-
13-Mar-2026
Daliy OrderView PDF
-
13-Mar-2026
Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C
Acjm II
-
05-Jan-2026
Evidence
Acjm II
-
12-Nov-2025
Evidence
Acjm II
-
29-Aug-2025
Daliy OrderView PDF
-
29-Aug-2025
Evidence
Acjm II
-
13-Jun-2025
For appearance
Acjm, 2Nd Court, Raghunathpur
-
02-Jun-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-May-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 306/2025
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.
Explore other courts