AMAR SINHA vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRCA/701/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010178042026

Filing Number

MCRCA/7533/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/701/2026

Registration Date

06-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--REJECTED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMAR SINHA

    Adv. Shikhar Bakhtiyar

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Case Summary: MCRCA/701/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected Amar Sinha's anticipatory bail application in a cyber fraud case involving 111 "mule accounts" at Karnataka Bank through which approximately Rs.86,33,247 was allegedly routed from online fraudulent transactions across multiple states. The court declined bail based on the serious nature and scale of the alleged offence, despite the applicant's arguments that all evidence was already with investigators and no custodial interrogation was needed. 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. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRCA/701/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRCA/701/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected Amar Sinha's anticipatory bail application in a cyber fraud case involving 111 "mule accounts" at Karnataka Bank through which approximately Rs.86,33,247 was allegedly routed from online fraudulent transactions across multiple states. The court declined bail based on the serious nature and scale of the alleged offence, despite the applicant's arguments that all evidence was already with investigators and no custodial interrogation was needed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case