KANIKA MAITI OFFICE REFERENCE, ,NAVNEET KUMAR YADAV,NAVNEET KUMAR YADAV,Arti Pritam Yadav,SANJAY KUMAR YADAV,AKATH KUMAR YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRMP/1481/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 18th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010211942026

Filing Number

CRMP/8981/2026

Filing Date

25-May-2026

Registration No

CRMP/1481/2026

Registration Date

25-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

APPLICATION U/S 528 OF B.N.S.S. 2023 ( 1411 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

18-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KANIKA MAITI OFFICE REFERENCE, ,NAVNEET KUMAR YADAV,NAVNEET KUMAR YADAV,Arti Pritam Yadav,SANJAY KUMAR YADAV,AKATH KUMAR YADAV

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

    Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted an extension for trial conclusion in a C.G. Protection of Depositors' Interest Act case involving petitioner Kanika Maiti. The trial court had requested 8-10 months to examine remaining witnesses (113 out of 128 witnesses still pending). The Chief Justice allowed the request but granted only 5 months instead, directing expedited completion while noting the case's complexity involving multiple investors. 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. 25-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMP/1481/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted an extension for trial conclusion in a C.G. Protection of Depositors' Interest Act case involving petitioner Kanika Maiti. The trial court had requested 8-10 months to examine remaining witnesses (113 out of 128 witnesses still pending). The Chief Justice allowed the request but granted only 5 months instead, directing expedited completion while noting the case's complexity involving multiple investors. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case