PARTHA PRATIM KARJEE MR.ANANDA PAUL vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — CRM(A)/802/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS on 08th April 2026.
CNR: WBCHCJ0052352025
Next Hearing
31st October 2025
Filing Number
CRM(A) /794/2025
Filing Date
29-10-2025
Registration No
CRM(A) /802/2025
Registration Date
29-10-2025
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP C (CRIMINAL MATTERS) ( 3 )
Sub-Category
Anticipatory Bail ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL SECTION
Decision Date
08th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PARTHA PRATIM KARJEE MR.ANANDA PAUL
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 31-10-2025 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL | |
| 07-04-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL | |
| 25-03-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL | |
| 18-03-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL | |
| 09-01-2026 | APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL |
Orders
The Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri disposed of Partha Pratim Karjee's anticipatory bail application as infractuous because his name does not appear in the charge sheet, rendering the application without purpose. Judge Sugato Majumdar ordered the dismissal based on the petitioner's counsel's submission that the applicant was not named in the formal charges filed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri disposed of Partha Pratim Karjee's anticipatory bail application as infractuous because his name does not appear in the charge sheet, rendering the application without purpose. Judge Sugato Majumdar ordered the dismissal based on the petitioner's counsel's submission that the applicant was not named in the formal charges filed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts