SMT. UMA AGRAWAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRCA/655/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010159242026

Filing Number

MCRCA/6701/2026

Filing Date

17-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/655/2026

Registration Date

29-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

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SMT. UMA AGRAWAL

    Adv. Jaydeep Singh Yadav,VIJAY KUMAR SAHU,VIJAY KUMAR SAHU, ,PRAMOD SHRIVASTAVA,VIJAY KUMAR SAHU

  2. 2.Smt. Rama Agrawal

  3. 3.Smt. Kanta Agrawal

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Case Summary: MCRCA 655/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to three women (Uma, Rama, and Kanta Agrawal) accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy in a 2009 case involving Rs. 2 crore loan default. The court found that their husbands (the principal accused) were acquitted on appeal, the loan has been repaid, the applicants have cooperated for 15+ years without absconding, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary given their medical conditions and the completed investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 17-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRCA/655/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRCA 655/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to three women (Uma, Rama, and Kanta Agrawal) accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy in a 2009 case involving Rs. 2 crore loan default. The court found that their husbands (the principal accused) were acquitted on appeal, the loan has been repaid, the applicants have cooperated for 15+ years without absconding, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary given their medical conditions and the completed investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case