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
Filing Number
CRM(A)/155/2026
Filing Date
27-Feb-2026
Registration No
CRM(A)/155/2026
Registration Date
27-Feb-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
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 27-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JAYDEEP MALPAHARI @ JOY MALPAHARI @ JAYDEEP PAPAI MAHAMMAD
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Justice Jay SenguptaView PDF
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.
-
16-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Justice Jay SenguptaView PDF
-
05-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar SharmaView PDF
-
05-Mar-2026
Application For Anticipatory Bail
Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
-
27-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRM(A)/155/2026
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.
Explore other courts