BHUNESHWAR RATHORE ALIAS RINKU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRCA/561/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 30th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010142612026

Filing Number

MCRCA/6046/2026

Filing Date

07-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/561/2026

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

POCSO Act ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

30-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 26-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BHUNESHWAR RATHORE ALIAS RINKU

    Adv. ABHINAV TIWARI,RAKESH KUMAR SAHU,RAKESH KUMAR SAHU, ,MANISH UPADHYAY,MINAKSHI GUPTA,PRABHAKAR TIWARI,RAKESH KUMAR SAHU

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to Bhuneshwar Rathore Alias Rinku, accused of kidnapping, assault, and POCSO violations. The court found contradictions regarding the victim's age (FIR stated 2009 birth, but Aadhaar showed 2008), absence of medical corroboration for alleged injuries despite assault claims, and that the parties knew each other, weighing against the severity of charges. Bail was conditioned on personal bond, non-interference with witnesses, court attendance, and submission of identity documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  5. 16-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  6. 07-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRCA/561/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to Bhuneshwar Rathore Alias Rinku, accused of kidnapping, assault, and POCSO violations. The court found contradictions regarding the victim's age (FIR stated 2009 birth, but Aadhaar showed 2008), absence of medical corroboration for alleged injuries despite assault claims, and that the parties knew each other, weighing against the severity of charges. Bail was conditioned on personal bond, non-interference with witnesses, court attendance, and submission of identity documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case