KAMLESH SAO, vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRCA/833/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010213792026

Filing Number

MCRCA/9074/2026

Filing Date

26-May-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/833/2026

Registration Date

29-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.KAMLESH SAO,

    Adv. Vinay Nagdev,Lukesh Kumar Mishra,Lukesh Kumar Mishra, ,MANOJ KUMAR YADAV,GIRISH SAHU,AKASH MISHRA,Lukesh Kumar Mishra,Lukesh Kumar Mishra

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/833/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to Kamlesh Sao, who was implicated in an embezzlement case involving approximately Rs. 3.38 crores. The court found that Sao was not named in the original complaint and had no direct monetary transfers from the complainant company; his implication stemmed solely from transactions with his sister (co-accused Monika Sahu), which he claimed were personal loan repayments. The court determined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary at this stage and noted similarly placed co-accused had already received anticipatory bail, entitling Sao to the same relief subject to 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. 26-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRCA/833/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRCA/833/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to Kamlesh Sao, who was implicated in an embezzlement case involving approximately Rs. 3.38 crores. The court found that Sao was not named in the original complaint and had no direct monetary transfers from the complainant company; his implication stemmed solely from transactions with his sister (co-accused Monika Sahu), which he claimed were personal loan repayments. The court determined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary at this stage and noted similarly placed co-accused had already received anticipatory bail, entitling Sao to the same relief subject to 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