ROBIN KUMAR AGRAWAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRCA/800/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010206572026

Filing Number

MCRCA/8745/2026

Filing Date

18-May-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/800/2026

Registration Date

18-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--ALLOWED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROBIN KUMAR AGRAWAL

    Adv. AWADH TRIPATHI,INDIRA TRIPATHI,INDIRA TRIPATHI, ,MANISH KUMAR SAHU,SHIKHAR AGNIHOTRI,SHIKHAR AGNIHOTRI,Shubham Tripathi,Shubham Tripathi,Vivek kumar tripathi,INDIRA TRIPATHI

  2. 2.Neelam Agrawal

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/800/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to Robin Kumar Agrawal and Neelam Agrawal in an embezzlement case involving Rs. 3.38 crore, finding no prima facie evidence that they directly benefited from fraudulent transfers to their bank accounts by their brother-in-law, the primary accused. The court noted all relevant documents were already seized, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and similar co-accused had been granted bail on parity grounds, imposing standard conditions including non-interference with witnesses and court attendance. 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/800/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRCA/800/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to Robin Kumar Agrawal and Neelam Agrawal in an embezzlement case involving Rs. 3.38 crore, finding no prima facie evidence that they directly benefited from fraudulent transfers to their bank accounts by their brother-in-law, the primary accused. The court noted all relevant documents were already seized, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and similar co-accused had been granted bail on parity grounds, imposing standard conditions including non-interference with witnesses and 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