RAKESH KUMAR UIKE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/4211/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010178102026

Filing Number

MCRC/7539/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCRC/4211/2026

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.RAKESH KUMAR UIKE

    Adv. VIKASH A.SHRIVASTAVA,PRAGYA SHRIVASTAVA,PRAGYA SHRIVASTAVA, ,Santosh Bharat,PRAGYA SHRIVASTAVA

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: MCRC 4211/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted bail to Rakesh Kumar Uike, a liquor shop salesman accused of embezzling Rs. 1,52,47,774 in stock and sale proceeds during October-November 2025. The court found his case identical to four co-accused persons already granted bail, and noted his lack of criminal antecedents and lengthy detention since January 2026. Bail was granted with conditions requiring personal bond with two sureties and strict compliance with trial court attendance. 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. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/4211/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRC 4211/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted bail to Rakesh Kumar Uike, a liquor shop salesman accused of embezzling Rs. 1,52,47,774 in stock and sale proceeds during October-November 2025. The court found his case identical to four co-accused persons already granted bail, and noted his lack of criminal antecedents and lengthy detention since January 2026. Bail was granted with conditions requiring personal bond with two sureties and strict compliance with trial court attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case