STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs Archana Debnath @Payel Ghosh — 333/2022
Case under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Section 17,21. Status: Awaiting Report. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
Special Court Cases (POCSO)
CNR: WBSP010192762022
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
Filing Number
333/2022
Filing Date
21-12-2022
Registration No
333/2022
Registration Date
21-12-2022
Court
District and Sessions Judge, Alipur, South 24 Pgs
Judge
3-2nd ADJ -cum- POCSO Court
FIR Details
FIR Number
272
Police Station
PATULI
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Adv. Special Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Archana Debnath @Payel Ghosh
Chandana Dhar @Sona
Subhasish Dey @Tinku
Rajib Majumder
Ruhul Amin
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd ADJ -cum- POCSO Court
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 14-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 09-09-2025 | Evidence |
| 22-08-2025 | Evidence |
| 17-06-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case 333/2022 Summary: The court allowed a petition by property owner Shilpi Karmakar to recover possession of her sealed apartment (2nd Floor, Anamika Apartment, Kolkata) used in a child sexual exploitation investigation. The court held that police cannot seize immovable property under CrPC sections 102 and 457, following Supreme Court precedent. The property was de-sealed and handed over to Karmakar with conditions: a ₹50 lakh bond, fresh inventory with videography, restrictions on third-party use, and IO access with court permission until trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 333/2022 Summary: The court allowed a petition by property owner Shilpi Karmakar to recover possession of her sealed apartment (2nd Floor, Anamika Apartment, Kolkata) used in a child sexual exploitation investigation. The court held that police cannot seize immovable property under CrPC sections 102 and 457, following Supreme Court precedent. The property was de-sealed and handed over to Karmakar with conditions: a ₹50 lakh bond, fresh inventory with videography, restrictions on third-party use, and IO access with court permission until trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts