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
Next Hearing
19th March 2026
Filing Number
CRM(A) /193/2026
Filing Date
17-03-2026
Registration No
CRM(A) /193/2026
Registration Date
17-03-2026
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
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAHUL KUMAR SMITA SINHA MITRA
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL | |
| 24-03-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL | |
| 23-03-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL |
Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts