VINOD KUMAR SANDE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRMP/1025/2026
Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th April 2026.
CNR: CGHC010137992026
Filing Number
CRMP/5817/2026
Filing Date
06-Apr-2026
Registration No
CRMP/1025/2026
Registration Date
08-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Coram
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Bench Type
Division 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.VINOD KUMAR SANDE
Adv. AWADH TRIPATHI,INDIRA TRIPATHI,INDIRA TRIPATHI, ,SHIKHAR AGNIHOTRI,SHIKHAR AGNIHOTRI,SHIKHAR AGNIHOTRI,SHIKHAR AGNIHOTRI,SHIKHAR AGNIHOTRI,Shubham Tripathi,Shubham Tripathi,Vivek kumar tripathi,INDIRA TRIPATHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.
-
2.Superintendent of Police
-
3.Senior Superintendent of Police
-
4.Anti Corruption Bureau/ EOW
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Apr-2026
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF
Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a petition by a school teacher seeking to quash corruption proceedings against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court found a prima facie case against the petitioner based on specific allegations of demanding ₹2,00,000 as illegal gratification to influence a transfer, supported by recorded conversations and trap proceedings, determining that matters of evidence and disputed factual contentions must be resolved during trial rather than at the quashing stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Apr-2026
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
-
06-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRMP/1025/2026
Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a petition by a school teacher seeking to quash corruption proceedings against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court found a prima facie case against the petitioner based on specific allegations of demanding ₹2,00,000 as illegal gratification to influence a transfer, supported by recorded conversations and trap proceedings, determining that matters of evidence and disputed factual contentions must be resolved during trial rather than at the quashing stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts