RAMDHAR GOND vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/5024/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 02nd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010215912026

Filing Number

MCRC/9164/2026

Filing Date

29-May-2026

Registration No

MCRC/5024/2026

Registration Date

30-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

EXCISE Act ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

02-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMDHAR GOND

    Adv. VIVEK SINGHAL,PRASHANT DANSENA,PRASHANT DANSENA, ,Gaurav Singhal,PRASHANT DANSENA,PRASHANT DANSENA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

    Case Summary: MCRC 5024/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to Ramdhar Gond, arrested for possessing 10 bulk liters of illegally made liquor under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. Though the State opposed bail citing the recovery amount and applicant's five prior criminal antecedents, the court found that the chargesheet had been filed and prolonged incarceration pending trial was unjustified. Bail was granted with conditions requiring personal bond with two sureties and strict compliance regarding court attendance, evidence proceedings, and trial dates. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Jun-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

  4. 29-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/5024/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRC 5024/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to Ramdhar Gond, arrested for possessing 10 bulk liters of illegally made liquor under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. Though the State opposed bail citing the recovery amount and applicant's five prior criminal antecedents, the court found that the chargesheet had been filed and prolonged incarceration pending trial was unjustified. Bail was granted with conditions requiring personal bond with two sureties and strict compliance regarding court attendance, evidence proceedings, and trial dates. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case