ASHIM MUKHERJEE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G., ,Aditya Pandey — MCRCA/552/2026
Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 08th May 2026.
CNR: CGHC010145402026
Filing Number
MCRCA/6148/2026
Filing Date
09-Apr-2026
Registration No
MCRCA/552/2026
Registration Date
10-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
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 26-May-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ASHIM MUKHERJEE
Adv. Arjit Tiwari,PRATIBHA SAHU,PRATIBHA SAHU, ,SAKSHI DEWANGAN,SAKSHI DEWANGAN,PRATIBHA SAHU
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G., ,Aditya Pandey
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF
Case Summary: MCRCA 552/2026 - Ashim Mukherjee v. State of Chhattisgarh The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to professor Ashim Mukherjee, accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old student during exam invigilation on 29.01.2026 (charges under BNS Section 74 and POCSO Act Section 8). The court found that while allegations were serious, the applicant had no criminal history, cooperated with investigation, CCTV footage disputed the charges, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary since no chargesheet had been filed. Bail was conditional on personal bond, surety, 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.
-
23-Apr-2026
Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF
-
16-Apr-2026
Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF
-
16-Apr-2026
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble The Chief Justice
-
09-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. MCRCA/552/2026
Case Summary: MCRCA 552/2026 - Ashim Mukherjee v. State of Chhattisgarh The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to professor Ashim Mukherjee, accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old student during exam invigilation on 29.01.2026 (charges under BNS Section 74 and POCSO Act Section 8). The court found that while allegations were serious, the applicant had no criminal history, cooperated with investigation, CCTV footage disputed the charges, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary since no chargesheet had been filed. Bail was conditional on personal bond, surety, 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