SIDDIK MIYA @ SIDDIK MIAH SANDEEP DUTTA vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR — CRM(A)/337/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 12th June 2026.
CNR: WBCHCJ0020822026
Filing Number
CRM(A)/329/2026
Filing Date
22-May-2026
Registration No
CRM(A)/337/2026
Registration Date
10-Jun-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
12-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 13-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SIDDIK MIYA @ SIDDIK MIAH SANDEEP DUTTA
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)View PDF
The High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench, Jalpaiguri) granted anticipatory bail to Siddik Miya in connection with charges under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The court approved bail of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties of Rs. 2,500 each (one local), after considering the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, subject to conditions that the petitioner cooperate with investigation and not intimidate witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Jun-2026
Application For Anticipatory Bail
Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
-
22-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRM(A)/337/2026
The High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench, Jalpaiguri) granted anticipatory bail to Siddik Miya in connection with charges under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The court approved bail of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties of Rs. 2,500 each (one local), after considering the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, subject to conditions that the petitioner cooperate with investigation and not intimidate witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts