KAWALJEET SINGH VIG vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/2111/2026

Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 20th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010079612026

Filing Number

MCRC/3391/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

MCRC/2111/2026

Registration Date

27-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

20-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 26-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAWALJEET SINGH VIG

    Adv. SIMRAN KAUR KARTAR SINGH,CHETNA SHARMA,CHETNA SHARMA, ,CHETNA SHARMA

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected bail for Kawaljeet Singh Vig, accused of cyber fraud under IPC Sections 420 and 34 involving Rs. 50,000 in unauthorized transactions. The court found sufficient incriminating evidence, including the applicant's memorandum confession to receiving crime proceeds through a linked bank account and his involvement in a criminal syndicate, warranting continued custody given the serious economic nature of the offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  4. 03-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/2111/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected bail for Kawaljeet Singh Vig, accused of cyber fraud under IPC Sections 420 and 34 involving Rs. 50,000 in unauthorized transactions. The court found sufficient incriminating evidence, including the applicant's memorandum confession to receiving crime proceeds through a linked bank account and his involvement in a criminal syndicate, warranting continued custody given the serious economic nature of the offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case