State of West Bengal vs Deep Karmakar alias Dipankar Karmakar and another Advocate - Pradipta Kundu — 684/2026

Case under I.p.c(police) Section 325,341,427,448,467,468,741,506,34. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

Bail

CNR: WBML010012782026

Filing Number

999/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

684/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Malda

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

255

Police Station

MALDA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

I.p.c(police) Section 325,341,427,448,467,468,741,506,34

Petitioner(s)

1.State of West Bengal

Adv. Asit Baran Basu

Respondent(s)

1.Deep Karmakar alias Dipankar Karmakar and another Advocate - Pradipta Kundu

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
17-Apr-2026

Copy of OrderView PDF

Summary: The Sessions Judge, Malda, rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Deep Karmakar and Bapan Karmakar in connection with a case involving alleged forgery of birth certificates, Aadhaar, and electoral documents. The court found that the petitioners appeared to have collusion and connivance with the primary accused and deemed custodial interrogation necessary at this early investigation stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
17-Apr-2026

Disposed

District and Sessions Judge
24-Mar-2026

Copy of OrderView PDF
24-Mar-2026

Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

District and Sessions Judge
16-Mar-2026

Hearing of Bail Petition/Petition

District and Sessions Judge
25-Feb-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
25-Feb-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 684/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Sessions Judge, Malda, rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Deep Karmakar and Bapan Karmakar in connection with a case involving alleged forgery of birth certificates, Aadhaar, and electoral documents. The court found that the petitioners appeared to have collusion and connivance with the primary accused and deemed custodial interrogation necessary at this early investigation stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.