RAHUL KUMAR SMITA SINHA MITRA vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — CRM(A)/193/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.
CNR: WBCHCJ0012162026
Filing Number
CRM(A)/193/2026
Filing Date
17-Mar-2026
Registration No
CRM(A)/193/2026
Registration Date
17-Mar-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
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Last updated 27-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAHUL KUMAR SMITA SINHA MITRA
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Justice Jay SenguptaView PDF
Summary: The Calcutta High Court's Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench granted anticipatory bail to Rahul Kumar in connection with charges of applying twice for an IBPS recruitment examination using AI-detected photo matching. The court found no evidence that someone else impersonated the petitioner during the examination and determined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Bail was granted on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with conditions including fortnightly cooperation with investigators and a commitment not to intimidate witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Application For Anticipatory Bail
Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
-
23-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Justice Jay SenguptaView PDF
-
23-Mar-2026
Application For Anticipatory Bail
Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
-
19-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRM(A)/193/2026
Summary: The Calcutta High Court's Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench granted anticipatory bail to Rahul Kumar in connection with charges of applying twice for an IBPS recruitment examination using AI-detected photo matching. The court found no evidence that someone else impersonated the petitioner during the examination and determined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Bail was granted on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with conditions including fortnightly cooperation with investigators and a commitment not to intimidate witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts