PALTAN VERMA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRMP/1027/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010132832026

Filing Number

CRMP/5619/2026

Filing Date

01-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRMP/1027/2026

Registration Date

08-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

APPLICATION U/S 528 OF B.N.S.S. 2023 ( 1411 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

13-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 22-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PALTAN VERMA

    Adv. Siddharth Pandey,RUCHI PATHAK,RUCHI PATHAK, ,UJJAWAL AGRAWAL,UJJAWAL AGRAWAL,AKASH HANSPAL

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.The Station House Officer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar JaiswalView PDF

    The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the petitioner Paltan Verma's petition seeking directions to the police to reconsider his objection and conduct a fair investigation in a murder case where he was accused of assaulting and killing Tularam Patel on 08.03.2026. The court held that inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS should not be invoked as there was no clear abuse of process or necessity to prevent injustice warranting intervention at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMP/1027/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the petitioner Paltan Verma's petition seeking directions to the police to reconsider his objection and conduct a fair investigation in a murder case where he was accused of assaulting and killing Tularam Patel on 08.03.2026. The court held that inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS should not be invoked as there was no clear abuse of process or necessity to prevent injustice warranting intervention at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case