SITARAM SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRCA/804/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 18th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010206522026

Filing Number

MCRCA/8740/2026

Filing Date

18-May-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/804/2026

Registration Date

19-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

18-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SITARAM SAHU

    Adv. RAJESH JAIN,KIRAN JAIN,KIRAN JAIN, ,KIRAN JAIN

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Case Summary: MCRCA/804/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected Sitaram Sahu's second anticipatory bail application in a case involving alleged discrepancies in paddy transportation records and evasion of mandi fees totaling ₹1,52,680. The court found that Sahu's subsequent deposit of outstanding fees and penalties did not constitute substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration, as prima facie evidence showed discrepancies in transportation records supporting the prosecution case under BNS Sections 318(4), 338, 339, and 340. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Jun-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 18-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRCA/804/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRCA/804/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected Sitaram Sahu's second anticipatory bail application in a case involving alleged discrepancies in paddy transportation records and evasion of mandi fees totaling ₹1,52,680. The court found that Sahu's subsequent deposit of outstanding fees and penalties did not constitute substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration, as prima facie evidence showed discrepancies in transportation records supporting the prosecution case under BNS Sections 318(4), 338, 339, and 340. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case