LAVLESH NIRMALKAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/5280/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010225882026

Filing Number

MCRC/9678/2026

Filing Date

12-Jun-2026

Registration No

MCRC/5280/2026

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--REJECTED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LAVLESH NIRMALKAR

    Adv. Lavkush Kumar Sahu,Hemant Kumar Sahu,Hemant Kumar Sahu, ,JAGDISH PRASAD LATHIYA,JAGDISH PRASAD LATHIYA,Sukhnath Ram Bhagat,Sukhnath Ram Bhagat,SYED AFAQUE HUSSAIN RIZVI,Hemant Kumar Sahu

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: MCRC 5280/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected Lavlesh Nirmalkar's second bail application in a bank burglary case (Crime No. 219/2025). Though the applicant argued he was falsely implicated based solely on a memorandum statement with no CCTV evidence or witness identification, the court found that hostile prosecution witnesses could not serve as grounds for bail. The court determined the evidence, though weak, was sufficient to deny bail pending trial completion. 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. 12-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/5280/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRC 5280/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected Lavlesh Nirmalkar's second bail application in a bank burglary case (Crime No. 219/2025). Though the applicant argued he was falsely implicated based solely on a memorandum statement with no CCTV evidence or witness identification, the court found that hostile prosecution witnesses could not serve as grounds for bail. The court determined the evidence, though weak, was sufficient to deny bail pending trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case