ROSHAN SHRIVAS vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/3436/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010146802026

Filing Number

MCRC/6210/2026

Filing Date

09-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCRC/3436/2026

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

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 26-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROSHAN SHRIVAS

    Adv. RAHUL GOSWAMI,DHARMENDRA BAGHEL,DHARMENDRA BAGHEL, ,T.R.CHANDRAKAR

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/3436/2026 Decision: The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to applicant Roshan Shrivas, arrested for alleged mobile phone snatching (Sections 304(2) and 3(5), Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). The court found him entitled to bail considering he had been in custody since 27.01.2026, the chargesheet was already filed, trial would take considerable time, and no incriminating articles were seized from him. Bail was conditional on furnishing personal bond with two sureties and strict compliance with court attendance and non-adjournment requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  5. 09-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/3436/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRC/3436/2026 Decision: The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to applicant Roshan Shrivas, arrested for alleged mobile phone snatching (Sections 304(2) and 3(5), Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). The court found him entitled to bail considering he had been in custody since 27.01.2026, the chargesheet was already filed, trial would take considerable time, and no incriminating articles were seized from him. Bail was conditional on furnishing personal bond with two sureties and strict compliance with court attendance and non-adjournment requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case