DAYA NAND NEGI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRCA/664/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010160412026

Filing Number

MCRCA/6754/2026

Filing Date

20-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/664/2026

Registration Date

30-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.DAYA NAND NEGI

    Adv. PRAVIN KUMAR TULSYAN,KARAN KUMAR BAHARANI,KARAN KUMAR BAHARANI, ,Abhishek Nirala,Abhishek Nirala,VIKAS PATEL,KARAN KUMAR BAHARANI

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 664/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Daya Nand Negi, accused under Section 69 of the BNS for maintaining a physical relationship with a major woman on false promise of marriage. The court found that the victim was a consenting adult and the relationship was consensual, though it did not materialize, treating the FIR as a result of relationship breakdown rather than genuine criminal conduct. Bail was granted subject to conditions including personal bond with surety, regular court attendance, and non-involvement in similar offenses. 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. 20-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRCA/664/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRCA 664/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Daya Nand Negi, accused under Section 69 of the BNS for maintaining a physical relationship with a major woman on false promise of marriage. The court found that the victim was a consenting adult and the relationship was consensual, though it did not materialize, treating the FIR as a result of relationship breakdown rather than genuine criminal conduct. Bail was granted subject to conditions including personal bond with surety, regular court attendance, and non-involvement in similar offenses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case