ROOPLAL VERMA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRMP/1045/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010133062026

Filing Number

CRMP/5636/2026

Filing Date

01-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRMP/1045/2026

Registration Date

10-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

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 22-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROOPLAL VERMA

    Adv. Siddharth Pandey,UJJAWAL AGRAWAL,UJJAWAL AGRAWAL, ,UJJAWAL AGRAWAL,UJJAWAL AGRAWAL,UJJAWAL AGRAWAL

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.The Station House Officer,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar JaiswalView PDF

    Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a petition by Rooplal Verma, accused in a murder case arising from an alleged mob assault on contractor Tularam Patel on March 8, 2026. While the petitioner sought directions to consider his objection claiming he was not present during the assault but only arrived later to assist authorities, the court declined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS, finding no clear abuse of process warranting intervention. The court held that investigating authorities have no obligation to dispose of such objections during the investigation stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMP/1045/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a petition by Rooplal Verma, accused in a murder case arising from an alleged mob assault on contractor Tularam Patel on March 8, 2026. While the petitioner sought directions to consider his objection claiming he was not present during the assault but only arrived later to assist authorities, the court declined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS, finding no clear abuse of process warranting intervention. The court held that investigating authorities have no obligation to dispose of such objections during the investigation 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