ARBAZ KHAN ALIAS HARVANSH KHAN vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL — 926/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED on 23rd April 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc Case

CNR: WBSP010032542026

Filing Number

1451/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

926/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Alipur, South 24 Pgs

Judge

2-1st ADJ

Decision Date

23-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED

Last updated 30-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

288

Police Station

KARAYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),351(2)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act Section 3(1)(x)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ARBAZ KHAN ALIAS HARVANSH KHAN

    Adv. RABINDRA NATH DAS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Order by CourtView PDF

    Case Summary: Criminal Misc. Case 926/2026 The court granted bail to Arbaz Khan (alias Harvansh Khan), accused under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and BNS sections 126(2)/115(2)/327(2), on a Rs. 3,000 bond with one surety. The court found that the accused had voluntarily surrendered, cooperated with investigation, showed no evidence of absconding or witness intimidation, and that custodial detention was not imperative at the investigative stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Order by CourtView PDF

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Order by CourtView PDF

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 926/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Misc. Case 926/2026 The court granted bail to Arbaz Khan (alias Harvansh Khan), accused under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and BNS sections 126(2)/115(2)/327(2), on a Rs. 3,000 bond with one surety. The court found that the accused had voluntarily surrendered, cooperated with investigation, showed no evidence of absconding or witness intimidation, and that custodial detention was not imperative at the investigative stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case