AJAY TIWARI KASHISH SALUJA, ,AMIT NAYAK,AMAN TAMRAKAR,PRIYA SHARMA,AVINASH CHAND SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G., ,VIVEKANAND SAMADDAR — MCRC/3321/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010136422026

Filing Number

MCRC/5761/2026

Filing Date

02-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCRC/3321/2026

Registration Date

09-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

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 22-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AJAY TIWARI KASHISH SALUJA, ,AMIT NAYAK,AMAN TAMRAKAR,PRIYA SHARMA,AVINASH CHAND SAHU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G., ,VIVEKANAND SAMADDAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    SUMMARY: The Chhattisgarh High Court granted bail to Ajay Tiwari in a cyber fraud case involving an alleged Rs. 9.60 lakh insurance fraud scheme. The court found that although Tiwari was accused under BNS Section 318(4) and IT Act Section 66(d), the complainant had already recovered the full amount and filed an affidavit supporting bail, no direct evidence (bank transactions/CDRs) linked him to the offense, and he had no criminal record. The court imposed strict bail conditions including mandatory court appearances and a penalty for absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  4. 13-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  5. 02-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/3321/2026

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The Chhattisgarh High Court granted bail to Ajay Tiwari in a cyber fraud case involving an alleged Rs. 9.60 lakh insurance fraud scheme. The court found that although Tiwari was accused under BNS Section 318(4) and IT Act Section 66(d), the complainant had already recovered the full amount and filed an affidavit supporting bail, no direct evidence (bank transactions/CDRs) linked him to the offense, and he had no criminal record. The court imposed strict bail conditions including mandatory court appearances and a penalty for absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case