CHANDRAPRAKASH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G., ,SHRUTI,SHRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY,SMT. POOJA SINHA,UTTAM PANDEY,UTTAM PANDEY — MCRCA/482/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010117592026

Filing Number

MCRCA/4993/2026

Filing Date

20-Mar-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/482/2026

Registration Date

27-Mar-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

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 29-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHANDRAPRAKASH

    Adv. Rishabh Gupta,Arpan Verma,Arpan Verma, ,SHITAL SHARMA,OMPRAKASH GUPTA,KABEER KALWANI,MAYANK GUPTA,SANDEEP PATEL,SANDEEP PATEL,SHASHWAT MISHRA,ADITYA DHAR DIWAN,SHIVANGI AGRAWAL,Arpan Verma

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G., ,SHRUTI,SHRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY,SMT. POOJA SINHA,UTTAM PANDEY,UTTAM PANDEY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Chandraprakash in a case under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (relating to consensual relations with false marriage promise). The court found that the 31-year-old victim and applicant had a consensual relationship that failed to materialize into marriage, and the FIR was lodged subsequently, warranting bail on conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular court appearance, and abstention from similar offenses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 20-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRCA/482/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Chandraprakash in a case under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (relating to consensual relations with false marriage promise). The court found that the 31-year-old victim and applicant had a consensual relationship that failed to materialize into marriage, and the FIR was lodged subsequently, warranting bail on conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular court appearance, and abstention from similar offenses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case