OMPRAKASH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/2018/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010057712026

Filing Number

MCRC/2459/2026

Filing Date

05-Feb-2026

Registration No

MCRC/2018/2026

Registration Date

25-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--REJECTED

Last updated 22-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.OMPRAKASH

    Adv. ARUN KUMAR YADAV,VIVEK KUMAR YADAV,VIVEK KUMAR YADAV, ,Gyan Prakash Shukla,VIVEK KUMAR YADAV

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 Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the regular bail application of Omprakash in a cyber fraud case (Crime No. 119/2025) involving mule bank accounts. The court found prima facie evidence that the applicant operated bank account(s) used to receive defrauded money (₹52,500 from a victim), facilitated another mule account, and admitted to providing accounts for fraudulent purposes. Given the gravity and organized nature of the cyber fraud offence, the court denied bail due to risk of absconding and witness tampering, while directing the trial court to expedite proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  5. 05-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/2018/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the regular bail application of Omprakash in a cyber fraud case (Crime No. 119/2025) involving mule bank accounts. The court found prima facie evidence that the applicant operated bank account(s) used to receive defrauded money (₹52,500 from a victim), facilitated another mule account, and admitted to providing accounts for fraudulent purposes. Given the gravity and organized nature of the cyber fraud offence, the court denied bail due to risk of absconding and witness tampering, while directing the trial court to expedite proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case