SAJIT TIRKEY @ CHHOTE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRMP/901/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010103132026

Filing Number

CRMP/4406/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRMP/901/2026

Registration Date

27-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

APPLICATION U/S 528 OF B.N.S.S. 2023 ( 1411 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 29-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAJIT TIRKEY @ CHHOTE

    Adv. BHUPENDRA SINGH,DHANESHWAR YADAV,DHANESHWAR YADAV, ,PARWATI SURYAWANSHI,ARPITA TIWARI,SONIA KULDEEP,DHANESHWAR YADAV

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar JaiswalView PDF

    Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the petitioner's petition challenging the trial court's rejection of his application for re-cross-examination of the rape victim and her parents. The court held that since the defence counsel had already been afforded sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses at length, allowing re-cross-examination merely due to a change of advocate would cause undue hardship to the victim and defeat the purpose of the statute, relying on Supreme Court precedent that recalls cannot be routinely permitted for reasons attributable to counsel's deficiency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMP/901/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the petitioner's petition challenging the trial court's rejection of his application for re-cross-examination of the rape victim and her parents. The court held that since the defence counsel had already been afforded sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses at length, allowing re-cross-examination merely due to a change of advocate would cause undue hardship to the victim and defeat the purpose of the statute, relying on Supreme Court precedent that recalls cannot be routinely permitted for reasons attributable to counsel's deficiency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case