VINOD KUMAR KARSH vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/3154/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010127272026

Filing Number

MCRC/5391/2026

Filing Date

27-Mar-2026

Registration No

MCRC/3154/2026

Registration Date

06-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

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VINOD KUMAR KARSH

    Adv. F.S.KHARE,RAM KUMAR TIWARI,RAM KUMAR TIWARI, ,MAMTA MAHILANGE,MAMTA MAHILANGE,NILU KUMARI SINGH,RAM KUMAR TIWARI

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Case Summary: MCRC/3154/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to Vinod Kumar Karsh, arrested for theft of jewelry and cash worth ₹1,19,000 from a complainant's home. Though stolen gold and silver ornaments were recovered from the applicant's possession, the court found bail appropriate considering his 2+ months imprisonment, clean criminal record, and the likelihood that trial would take substantial time. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions including furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and mandatory presence at critical trial stages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  5. 27-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/3154/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRC/3154/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to Vinod Kumar Karsh, arrested for theft of jewelry and cash worth ₹1,19,000 from a complainant's home. Though stolen gold and silver ornaments were recovered from the applicant's possession, the court found bail appropriate considering his 2+ months imprisonment, clean criminal record, and the likelihood that trial would take substantial time. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions including furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and mandatory presence at critical trial stages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case