DASHRATH SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/3307/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010140712026

Filing Number

MCRC/5927/2026

Filing Date

07-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCRC/3307/2026

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

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DASHRATH SAHU

    Adv. SUDHIR KUMAR SAHU

  2. 2.Preetlal Sahu

  3. 3.Brijlal Sahu

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Case Summary: MCRC/3307/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to three applicants (Dashrath, Preetlal, and Brijlal Sahu) arrested for assault charges stemming from a January 2026 altercation involving family enmity. The court found that the charges are not capital offences, the chargesheet has been filed, the victim refused medical examination, and the applicants had been in custody since January 22, 2026 with trial completion likely taking considerable time. Bail was conditional upon furnishing personal bonds with sureties and strict compliance requirements including mandatory court attendance and no adjournment-seeking during witness examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  5. 07-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/3307/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRC/3307/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to three applicants (Dashrath, Preetlal, and Brijlal Sahu) arrested for assault charges stemming from a January 2026 altercation involving family enmity. The court found that the charges are not capital offences, the chargesheet has been filed, the victim refused medical examination, and the applicants had been in custody since January 22, 2026 with trial completion likely taking considerable time. Bail was conditional upon furnishing personal bonds with sureties and strict compliance requirements including mandatory court attendance and no adjournment-seeking during witness examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case