SAFIQ AHMAD vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRA/434/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010035882026

Filing Number

CRR/1520/2026

Filing Date

22-Jan-2026

Registration No

CRA/434/2026

Registration Date

29-Jan-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES ( 1440 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 17-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAFIQ AHMAD

    Adv. DR. ARHAM SIDDIQUI,VIVEKANAND SAMADDAR,VIVEKANAND SAMADDAR, ,VIVEKANAND SAMADDAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.Dharmendra Singh

    Adv. HEMANT GUPTA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar JaiswalView PDF

    Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the criminal appeal against charges framed under the SC/ST (Atrocity Prevention) Act, 1989. The court held that the trial court's order framing charges was legally sound, finding sufficient prima facie evidence of criminal conduct based on caste-based allegations, and that no interference was warranted at the appellate stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 13-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar JaiswalView PDF

  5. 30-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 22-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRA/434/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the criminal appeal against charges framed under the SC/ST (Atrocity Prevention) Act, 1989. The court held that the trial court's order framing charges was legally sound, finding sufficient prima facie evidence of criminal conduct based on caste-based allegations, and that no interference was warranted at the appellate stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case