LEELARAM MARKAM vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/2432/2026

Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 06th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010102192026

Filing Number

MCRC/4368/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

MCRC/2432/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-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

POCSO Act ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

06-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LEELARAM MARKAM

    Adv. G. L. Uike

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar JaiswalView PDF

    The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the bail application of Leelaram Markam, who was arrested for abducting and sexually abusing a minor girl under the pretext of marriage, citing the gravity of the offense and victim's age. However, the court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within 5 months, considering the applicant has been in custody since September 2024 and only 5 of 22 witnesses have been examined. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar JaiswalView PDF

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/2432/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the bail application of Leelaram Markam, who was arrested for abducting and sexually abusing a minor girl under the pretext of marriage, citing the gravity of the offense and victim's age. However, the court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within 5 months, considering the applicant has been in custody since September 2024 and only 5 of 22 witnesses have been examined. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case