SURAJ PANDEY OFFICE REFERENCE, ,Chandradeep Prasad,RUPESH SHRIVASTAVA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G., ,K.P.S.Gandhi,K.P.S.Gandhi — CRMP/1485/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010212632026

Filing Number

CRMP/9015/2026

Filing Date

25-May-2026

Registration No

CRMP/1485/2026

Registration Date

26-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

MATTERS RELATING TO RESTORATION / MODIFICATION / EXTENSION OF TIME IN DECIDED CRIMINAL CASE ( 1450 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

18-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURAJ PANDEY OFFICE REFERENCE, ,Chandradeep Prasad,RUPESH SHRIVASTAVA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G., ,K.P.S.Gandhi,K.P.S.Gandhi

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Case Summary: CRMP 1485/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted an extension of three months for the trial court to conclude Session Trial No. 71/2024 against Suraj Pandey. The court found the extension request reasonable, noting that prosecution evidence was completed and the accused's statement recorded, but defence evidence could not be finished within the previously stipulated one-month deadline due to time sought by the defence. The trial court is now directed to complete the trial within three months from receiving this order. 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/1485/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRMP 1485/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted an extension of three months for the trial court to conclude Session Trial No. 71/2024 against Suraj Pandey. The court found the extension request reasonable, noting that prosecution evidence was completed and the accused's statement recorded, but defence evidence could not be finished within the previously stipulated one-month deadline due to time sought by the defence. The trial court is now directed to complete the trial within three months from receiving this order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case