MOHAMMED GULAM ASHRAF vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRCA/670/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010177122026

Filing Number

MCRCA/7489/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/670/2026

Registration Date

01-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.MOHAMMED GULAM ASHRAF

    Adv. Trivikram Nayak,SYED ZEESHAN,SYED ZEESHAN, ,PRANAV TIWARI,SAJAL KUMAR GUPTA,SYED ZEESHAN

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

  3. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Case Summary: MCRCA 670/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to Mohammed Gulam Ashraf, who faced charges of assault, abuse, and threats arising from a December 2025 altercation over tree-cutting. The court found the dispute resulted from sudden provocation, noted that most charges were bailable offences, and determined the essential ingredients of the non-bailable charge (Section 333 BNS) were not prima facie established. The bail was conditional on personal recognizance, court appearance, and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 06-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  5. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRCA/670/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRCA 670/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to Mohammed Gulam Ashraf, who faced charges of assault, abuse, and threats arising from a December 2025 altercation over tree-cutting. The court found the dispute resulted from sudden provocation, noted that most charges were bailable offences, and determined the essential ingredients of the non-bailable charge (Section 333 BNS) were not prima facie established. The bail was conditional on personal recognizance, court appearance, and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case