JAYDEEP MALPAHARI @ JOY MALPAHARI @ JAYDEEP PAPAI MAHAMMAD vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR — CRM(A)/155/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 23rd March 2026.

CNR: WBCHCJ0009792026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

05th March 2026

Filing Number

CRM(A) /155/2026

Filing Date

27-02-2026

Registration No

CRM(A) /155/2026

Registration Date

27-02-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP C (CRIMINAL MATTERS) ( 3 )

Sub-Category

Anticipatory Bail ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL SECTION

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 482
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act Section 12,

Petitioner(s)

JAYDEEP MALPAHARI @ JOY MALPAHARI @ JAYDEEP PAPAI MAHAMMAD

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA

05-03-2026

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

Orders

23-03-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA

Summary The Calcutta High Court granted anticipatory bail to 19-year-old Jaydeep Malpahari, accused under POCSO Act sections for allegedly publishing obscene photographs of a 15-year-old girl after their romantic relationship ended. The court imposed strict conditions including a Rs. 10,000 bond with sureties, six-month restriction from Kotwali Police Station jurisdiction, prohibition on social media publications, and regular court attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Calcutta High Court granted anticipatory bail to 19-year-old Jaydeep Malpahari, accused under POCSO Act sections for allegedly publishing obscene photographs of a 15-year-old girl after their romantic relationship ended. The court imposed strict conditions including a Rs. 10,000 bond with sureties, six-month restriction from Kotwali Police Station jurisdiction, prohibition on social media publications, and regular court attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case