SUBHAM DUTTA @ SHUVAM DUTTA ABHILASH MITTAL vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. — CRM(A) /208/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 27th March 2026.
CNR: WBCHCJ0012792026
Next Hearing
24th March 2026
Filing Number
CRM(A) /208/2026
Filing Date
20-03-2026
Registration No
CRM(A) /208/2026
Registration Date
20-03-2026
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
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SUBHAM DUTTA @ SHUVAM DUTTA ABHILASH MITTAL
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL | |
| 27-03-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL |
Orders
Summary The High Court at Calcutta granted anticipatory bail to Subham Dutta in a case involving alleged cheating and relationship disputes under BNS sections 126(2)/115(2)/69/79. The court found that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the couple had reconciled and were living together again, with even the alleged victim's counsel supporting bail. The petitioner was ordered to furnish a Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties and comply with investigation conditions including bi-weekly meetings with the Investigating Officer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The High Court at Calcutta granted anticipatory bail to Subham Dutta in a case involving alleged cheating and relationship disputes under BNS sections 126(2)/115(2)/69/79. The court found that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the couple had reconciled and were living together again, with even the alleged victim's counsel supporting bail. The petitioner was ordered to furnish a Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties and comply with investigation conditions including bi-weekly meetings with the Investigating Officer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts