ROSHAN PESHWANI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRCA/537/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010140322026

Filing Number

MCRCA/5920/2026

Filing Date

06-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/537/2026

Registration Date

08-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

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 17-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROSHAN PESHWANI

    Adv. Ali Afzaal Mirza,SHAMSUDDIN MIRZA,SHAMSUDDIN MIRZA, ,SURAJ JAISWAL,SURAJ JAISWAL,AHMED AYAAN MIRZA,Navin Shukla,SMITA JHA,SHAMSUDDIN MIRZA

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to Roshan Peshwani, who was accused of embezzling approximately ₹8,15,800 from his employer A. Leela Electronics under Section 316(4) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The court found that the dispute primarily arose from alleged misappropriation during employment, with evidence being documentary in nature (bank transactions and accounts) that could be verified during investigation, and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents. The bail was granted on conditions including personal bond, non-interference with witnesses, and regular court appearances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRCA/537/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to Roshan Peshwani, who was accused of embezzling approximately ₹8,15,800 from his employer A. Leela Electronics under Section 316(4) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The court found that the dispute primarily arose from alleged misappropriation during employment, with evidence being documentary in nature (bank transactions and accounts) that could be verified during investigation, and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents. The bail was granted on conditions including personal bond, non-interference with witnesses, and regular court appearances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case