PADAM (PADAMCHAND BHANSALI) vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRCA/680/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010173392026

Filing Number

MCRCA/7324/2026

Filing Date

28-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/680/2026

Registration Date

02-May-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

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PADAM (PADAMCHAND BHANSALI)

    Adv. RAJESH JAIN,KIRAN JAIN,KIRAN JAIN, ,KIRAN JAIN

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: MCRCA 680/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to Padam (Padamchand Bhansali), a paddy trader accused of selling 172 quintals of paddy beyond authorized permits and causing ₹1,42,560 loss to the Mandi Samiti. The court found that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the charges arose from business transaction irregularities under agricultural market regulations, the applicant had already deposited all dues and obtained a no-due certificate, and the offences were triable by Magistrate court. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions including mandatory personal court appearances, no adjournment requests, and penalties for non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 28-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRCA/680/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRCA 680/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to Padam (Padamchand Bhansali), a paddy trader accused of selling 172 quintals of paddy beyond authorized permits and causing ₹1,42,560 loss to the Mandi Samiti. The court found that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the charges arose from business transaction irregularities under agricultural market regulations, the applicant had already deposited all dues and obtained a no-due certificate, and the offences were triable by Magistrate court. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions including mandatory personal court appearances, no adjournment requests, and penalties for non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case