LAXMI SHARMA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/4240/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010180802026

Filing Number

MCRC/7653/2026

Filing Date

02-May-2026

Registration No

MCRC/4240/2026

Registration Date

04-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

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LAXMI SHARMA

    Adv. Shikhar Bakhtiyar

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: MCRC/4240/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to Laxmi Sharma, arrested for alleged involvement in illegal money lending, extortion, and physical assault. The court found that while the allegations against her included accompanying the co-accused to intimidate and assault the complainant, her lack of criminal antecedents, prolonged custody since April 5, 2026, and the likely lengthy trial process warranted bail. The decision was influenced by the fact that the primary accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same court. Bail was granted with strict conditions including personal bond with two sureties, mandatory court attendance on all dates, and restrictions against seeking adjournments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 02-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/4240/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: MCRC/4240/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to Laxmi Sharma, arrested for alleged involvement in illegal money lending, extortion, and physical assault. The court found that while the allegations against her included accompanying the co-accused to intimidate and assault the complainant, her lack of criminal antecedents, prolonged custody since April 5, 2026, and the likely lengthy trial process warranted bail. The decision was influenced by the fact that the primary accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same court. Bail was granted with strict conditions including personal bond with two sureties, mandatory court attendance on all dates, and restrictions against seeking adjournments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case