GAUKARAN NISHAD vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/3275/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010124222026

Filing Number

MCRC/5273/2026

Filing Date

25-Mar-2026

Registration No

MCRC/3275/2026

Registration Date

08-Apr-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

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 17-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GAUKARAN NISHAD

    Adv. Pragalbha Sharma,KSHITIJ SHARMA,KSHITIJ SHARMA, ,LAXMI GUPTA,LAXMI GUPTA,LAXMI GUPTA,RUCHI NAGAR,KSHITIJ SHARMA

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to Gaukaran Nishad in a temple theft case (Crime No. 263/2024), finding the evidence against him weak and circumstantial. The court noted that the complainant failed to identify the applicant and testified the person in CCTV footage was different from him, the charge sheet had been filed, and he had already served substantial jail time since December 20, 2024. Bail was conditioned on furnishing personal bond with two sureties and strict compliance with court attendance requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/3275/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to Gaukaran Nishad in a temple theft case (Crime No. 263/2024), finding the evidence against him weak and circumstantial. The court noted that the complainant failed to identify the applicant and testified the person in CCTV footage was different from him, the charge sheet had been filed, and he had already served substantial jail time since December 20, 2024. Bail was conditioned on furnishing personal bond with two sureties and strict compliance with court attendance requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case