LAKHESHWAR MANJHI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/3025/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010128632026

Filing Number

MCRC/5449/2026

Filing Date

28-Mar-2026

Registration No

MCRC/3025/2026

Registration Date

01-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

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LAKHESHWAR MANJHI

    Adv. KISHORE NARAYAN,AMARNATH PANDEY,AMARNATH PANDEY, ,SAURABH PANDEY,GAGAN PANDEY,Pritam Singh,AMARNATH PANDEY

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    The Chhattisgarh High Court granted bail to Lakheshwar Manjhi, a 23-year-old collection agent accused of misappropriating ₹41,23,054 from his employer CMS Info System Ltd (Crime No. 64/2025, Sections 316(5) and 318(4) BNS). The court found that no witnesses had been examined despite the chargesheet being filed, and the applicant had been in custody since September 2025, warranting bail with strict conditions including personal bonds, mandatory court attendance, and penalties for non-compliance or adjournment abuse. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  5. 28-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/3025/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court granted bail to Lakheshwar Manjhi, a 23-year-old collection agent accused of misappropriating ₹41,23,054 from his employer CMS Info System Ltd (Crime No. 64/2025, Sections 316(5) and 318(4) BNS). The court found that no witnesses had been examined despite the chargesheet being filed, and the applicant had been in custody since September 2025, warranting bail with strict conditions including personal bonds, mandatory court attendance, and penalties for non-compliance or adjournment abuse. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case