MUKESH AGRAWAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRCA/816/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010210082026

Filing Number

MCRCA/8880/2026

Filing Date

21-May-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/816/2026

Registration Date

21-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.MUKESH AGRAWAL

    Adv. SANJAY AGRAWAL,KRISHNA TANDON,KRISHNA TANDON, ,VIDHI MATLANI,VIDHI MATLANI,NEELAM KHAN,ANANYA TIWARI,SHRUTI SHRIVASTAVA,KRISHNA TANDON

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 816/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Mukesh Agrawal, who was charged in connection with a fire incident at a plastic goods shop on his premises that spread to a neighboring house, causing property damage. The court found that while Agrawal owned the premises, the shop was operated by co-accused Praveen Agrawal (his brother-in-law), and no material evidence established Agrawal's involvement in storing firecrackers or explosives or any direct role in the incident. The court applied the principle of parity, noting the co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, and determined custodial interrogation unnecessary given the weak prima facie case against Agrawal, conditional on standard bail conditions. 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. 21-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRCA/816/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: MCRCA 816/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Mukesh Agrawal, who was charged in connection with a fire incident at a plastic goods shop on his premises that spread to a neighboring house, causing property damage. The court found that while Agrawal owned the premises, the shop was operated by co-accused Praveen Agrawal (his brother-in-law), and no material evidence established Agrawal's involvement in storing firecrackers or explosives or any direct role in the incident. The court applied the principle of parity, noting the co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, and determined custodial interrogation unnecessary given the weak prima facie case against Agrawal, conditional on standard bail conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case