SITARAM CHALKI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/1489/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010054622026

Filing Number

MCRC/2305/2026

Filing Date

04-Feb-2026

Registration No

MCRC/1489/2026

Registration Date

07-Feb-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

Other ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 22-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SITARAM CHALKI

    Adv. PRAVIN KUMAR TULSYAN,ASHOK JAIN,ASHOK JAIN, ,KARAN KUMAR BAHARANI,VIKAS PATEL,Abhishek Nirala,Abhishek Nirala

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to Sitaram Chalki, accused of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 109(1) of BNS for attacking someone with a knife in an agricultural dispute. The court considered that six prosecution witnesses out of 16 had been examined, the applicant had been in custody since October 31, 2025, and trial conclusion would take considerable time, making him eligible for bail with strict conditions including mandatory court attendance and non-adjournment undertakings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  4. 26-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  5. 11-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  7. 04-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/1489/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to Sitaram Chalki, accused of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 109(1) of BNS for attacking someone with a knife in an agricultural dispute. The court considered that six prosecution witnesses out of 16 had been examined, the applicant had been in custody since October 31, 2025, and trial conclusion would take considerable time, making him eligible for bail with strict conditions including mandatory court attendance and non-adjournment undertakings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case