RAMESH KUMAR DEWANGAN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRCA/875/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010224912026

Filing Number

MCRCA/9636/2026

Filing Date

11-Jun-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/875/2026

Registration Date

15-Jun-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.RAMESH KUMAR DEWANGAN

    Adv. AMIT KUMAR VERMA,SEEMA VERMA,SEEMA VERMA, ,SEEMA MISHRA,SEEMA VERMA

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 875/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Ramesh Kumar Dewangan, accused of sexual assault, extortion, and harassment under BNS Sections 64(2)(m), 308(2), and 351(3). The court found that the prosecutrix was a major in a consensual relationship with the applicant, and the FIR was lodged only after the relationship ended, characterizing it as a case of jilted romance rather than serious criminal conduct. Bail was granted subject to conditions including executing a personal bond, maintaining court appearance, and non-involvement in similar offences. 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. 11-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRCA/875/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRCA 875/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Ramesh Kumar Dewangan, accused of sexual assault, extortion, and harassment under BNS Sections 64(2)(m), 308(2), and 351(3). The court found that the prosecutrix was a major in a consensual relationship with the applicant, and the FIR was lodged only after the relationship ended, characterizing it as a case of jilted romance rather than serious criminal conduct. Bail was granted subject to conditions including executing a personal bond, maintaining court appearance, and non-involvement in similar offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case