State Of West Bengal vs Partha Pratim Adhikary — 24/2025

Case under Immoral Traffic (prevention) Act Section 9. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 17th April 2026.

Sessions Case

CNR: WBCB010008412025

Case disposed

Filing Number

716/2025

Filing Date

05-04-2025

Registration No

24/2025

Registration Date

05-04-2025

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Coochbehar

Judge

3-Addl District and Sessions Judge II

Decision Date

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

224

Police Station

Cooch Behar Women PS

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT Section 9
INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 370(2),370-A(2)

Petitioner(s)

State Of West Bengal

Adv. P.P Cooch Behar

Respondent(s)

Partha Pratim Adhikary

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Addl District and Sessions Judge II

17-04-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

Evidence

19-02-2026

Evidence

16-12-2025

Evidence

15-12-2025

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

17-04-2026
Judgement

Case Summary: State of West Bengal v. Partha Pratim Adhikary (24/2025) The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Partha Pratim Adhikary of charges under IPC sections 498A/370A/506 and the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956. The victim (PW1) retracted her allegations, testifying she filed the complaint due to family dispute and maintenance issues, not trafficking. The two other prosecution witnesses had no knowledge of the alleged incidents. Finding insufficient evidence of physical torture or human trafficking, the court concluded the charges were unproven and discharged the accused from bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

05-04-2025
Order
22-04-2025
Order
07-08-2025
Order
15-12-2025
Order
16-12-2025
Order
19-02-2026
Order
13-03-2026
Order
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of West Bengal v. Partha Pratim Adhikary (24/2025) The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Partha Pratim Adhikary of charges under IPC sections 498A/370A/506 and the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956. The victim (PW1) retracted her allegations, testifying she filed the complaint due to family dispute and maintenance issues, not trafficking. The two other prosecution witnesses had no knowledge of the alleged incidents. Finding insufficient evidence of physical torture or human trafficking, the court concluded the charges were unproven and discharged the accused from bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Sessions Judge, Coochbehar All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case