STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs APURBA BANERJEE Advocate - ANSHUMAN DUTTA — 378/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 17th March 2026.
1.Criminal Misc. - Criminal Misc.
CNR: WBHW010009872026
Filing Number
589/2026
Filing Date
18-02-2026
Registration No
378/2026
Registration Date
18-02-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge, Howrah
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
98
Police Station
Chatterjeehat
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Adv. SOMNATH BANERJEE
Respondent(s)
APURBA BANERJEE Advocate - ANSHUMAN DUTTA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Disposed
Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition
Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition
Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition
Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition |
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition |
| 26-02-2026 | Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition |
| 18-02-2026 | Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 378/2026 The Sessions Judge, Howrah granted anticipatory bail to Apurba Banerjee, accused of offences including sexual misconduct and misappropriation of Rs. 35 lakhs. The court found the victim's allegations of false promise of marriage to lack credibility, noting she was a 45-year-old married woman without proven divorce, seemingly capable of understanding her actions in the relationship, and that the accused had actually sent substantial funds to her account—suggesting possible debt evasion rather than victimization. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including furnishing Rs. 10,000 bond with sureties and cooperation with police interrogation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 378/2026 The Sessions Judge, Howrah granted anticipatory bail to Apurba Banerjee, accused of offences including sexual misconduct and misappropriation of Rs. 35 lakhs. The court found the victim's allegations of false promise of marriage to lack credibility, noting she was a 45-year-old married woman without proven divorce, seemingly capable of understanding her actions in the relationship, and that the accused had actually sent substantial funds to her account—suggesting possible debt evasion rather than victimization. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including furnishing Rs. 10,000 bond with sureties and cooperation with police interrogation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts