DEV KUMAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/2676/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010110052026

Filing Number

MCRC/4708/2026

Filing Date

16-Mar-2026

Registration No

MCRC/2676/2026

Registration Date

18-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

POCSO Act ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 22-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DEV KUMAR

    Adv. ANIL KUMAR GULATI,GUNJA TARAM,GUNJA TARAM, ,I.BHAWANI,I.BHAWANI,SHUBHAM TIWARI,GUNJA TARAM

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan AgrawalView PDF

    The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to Dev Kumar in a POCSO Act case, directing his release on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with surety. The court was influenced by the victim's statement not supporting the prosecution's case, her explicit "no objection" to bail, and the applicant's claim that he had married the victim and they have a child together, coupled with the likelihood of prolonged trial proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan AgrawalView PDF

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

  5. 13-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar JaiswalView PDF

  6. 19-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/2676/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to Dev Kumar in a POCSO Act case, directing his release on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with surety. The court was influenced by the victim's statement not supporting the prosecution's case, her explicit "no objection" to bail, and the applicant's claim that he had married the victim and they have a child together, coupled with the likelihood of prolonged trial 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