SUDESH YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/3440/2026
Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.
CNR: CGHC010141102026
Filing Number
MCRC/5948/2026
Filing Date
07-Apr-2026
Registration No
MCRC/3440/2026
Registration Date
13-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
13-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 26-May-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SUDESH YADAV
Adv. SANGEET KUMAR KUSHWAHA,Sharad Mishra,Sharad Mishra, ,PRIYA KAIWART,PRIYA KAIWART,PRASHANT SAHU,Sharad Mishra
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-May-2026
Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF
Summary: MCRC 3440/2026 - Sudesh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed Sudesh Yadav's third bail application in a bank embezzlement case involving ₹23.74 crore in financial irregularities across cooperative bank branches. Although two earlier bail pleas were rejected, the court granted bail primarily on medical grounds, finding that the applicant suffers from bilateral kidney stones and requires specialized treatment unavailable in jail facilities. The court considered that 101 prosecution witnesses and 105 documents remain pending, charges are unframed, and trial conclusion will take considerable time. Bail was granted with strict conditions including personal bonds, mandatory court attendance, and undertakings against adjournments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Apr-2026
Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF
-
16-Apr-2026
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble The Chief Justice
-
07-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. MCRC/3440/2026
Summary: MCRC 3440/2026 - Sudesh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed Sudesh Yadav's third bail application in a bank embezzlement case involving ₹23.74 crore in financial irregularities across cooperative bank branches. Although two earlier bail pleas were rejected, the court granted bail primarily on medical grounds, finding that the applicant suffers from bilateral kidney stones and requires specialized treatment unavailable in jail facilities. The court considered that 101 prosecution witnesses and 105 documents remain pending, charges are unframed, and trial conclusion will take considerable time. Bail was granted with strict conditions including personal bonds, mandatory court attendance, and undertakings against adjournments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts