MD IZHAR ALAM ALIAS JIHAR ASRAF vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL — 297/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Allowed in part on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc.

CNR: WBUD010005882026

Filing Number

444/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

297/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Raignj, North Dinajpur

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed in part

Last updated 21-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

35

Police Station

CHAKULIA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MD IZHAR ALAM ALIAS JIHAR ASRAF

    Adv. PRATAP KAR

  2. 2.TARIK ANWAR ALIAS MD TARIK ALAM

  3. 3.MAKSUD

  4. 4.MUJENA KHATUN ALIAS BIBI MARJINA ALIAS MAJUNA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail application of Md Izhar Alam under Section 482 of B.N.S.S in a case involving allegations of sexual intercourse through deception under Section 69 B.N.S. The court found prima facie evidence of deception and concluded that anticipatory bail was not warranted at this stage, despite the petitioner's claim that the parties were in a consensual relationship. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

    District Judge

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

    District Judge

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 297/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail application of Md Izhar Alam under Section 482 of B.N.S.S in a case involving allegations of sexual intercourse through deception under Section 69 B.N.S. The court found prima facie evidence of deception and concluded that anticipatory bail was not warranted at this stage, despite the petitioner's claim that the parties were in a consensual relationship. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case