UDAYAN GUHA AVIPSHA DUTTA ROY vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — CRM(A)/318/2026
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Act ,1974 Section 438. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 11th June 2026.
CNR: WBCHCJ0020572026
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
CRM(A)/328/2026
Filing Date
21-05-2026
Registration No
CRM(A)/318/2026
Registration Date
08-06-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP C (CRIMINAL MATTERS) ( 3 )
Sub-Category
Anticipatory Bail ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL SECTION
Decision Date
11th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
UDAYAN GUHA AVIPSHA DUTTA ROY
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-06-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL |
| 11-06-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL |
Orders
Case Summary: CRM(A) 318/2026 Udayan Guha v. The State of West Bengal The Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri granted anticipatory bail to petitioner Udayan Guha in connection with a Pundibari Police Station case involving charges of rioting, criminal intimidation, and damage to public property. The court found that custodial interrogation was unnecessary given the incident occurred nearly a year prior (August 2025), minimal medical evidence existed (only one inconclusive injury report), and the petitioner was not initially named in the original complaint. Bail was granted with Rs. 10,000 bond and two sureties, subject to cooperation with investigation and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CRM(A) 318/2026 Udayan Guha v. The State of West Bengal The Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri granted anticipatory bail to petitioner Udayan Guha in connection with a Pundibari Police Station case involving charges of rioting, criminal intimidation, and damage to public property. The court found that custodial interrogation was unnecessary given the incident occurred nearly a year prior (August 2025), minimal medical evidence existed (only one inconclusive injury report), and the petitioner was not initially named in the original complaint. Bail was granted with Rs. 10,000 bond and two sureties, subject to cooperation with investigation and non-interference with 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