RISHABH SINGH CHAUHAN @ SOMU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/4255/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010175522026

Filing Number

MCRC/7420/2026

Filing Date

29-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCRC/4255/2026

Registration Date

05-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

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RISHABH SINGH CHAUHAN @ SOMU

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

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    SUMMARY The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed Rishabh Singh Chauhan's bail application in a case involving allegations of abuse, wrongful restraint, and outraging modesty under BNS Sections 74, 75, 78, 296, 126(2), and 79. The court found that further pre-trial detention was unwarranted, considering the charge-sheet was already filed, the medical report was inconclusive, and evidence suggested the FIR may have been lodged after the applicant refused to fulfill the victim's financial demands (supported by PhonePe transaction records). The applicant was released on personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions including mandatory court attendance and no adjournment-seeking during evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 29-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/4255/2026

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed Rishabh Singh Chauhan's bail application in a case involving allegations of abuse, wrongful restraint, and outraging modesty under BNS Sections 74, 75, 78, 296, 126(2), and 79. The court found that further pre-trial detention was unwarranted, considering the charge-sheet was already filed, the medical report was inconclusive, and evidence suggested the FIR may have been lodged after the applicant refused to fulfill the victim's financial demands (supported by PhonePe transaction records). The applicant was released on personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions including mandatory court attendance and no adjournment-seeking during evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case