SUMIT SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/10244/2025

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 11th December 2025.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010525292025

Filing Number

MCRC/20325/2025

Filing Date

05-Dec-2025

Registration No

MCRC/10244/2025

Registration Date

09-Dec-2025

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

11-Dec-2025

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUMIT SAHU

    Adv. Pushpendra Singh Baghel,Rajbahadur Singh,Rajbahadur Singh, ,DHANESHWAR YADAV,Rajbahadur Singh

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to 19-year-old Sumit Sahu, arrested for robbery under Sections 309(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court found that while the applicant was implicated based solely on co-accused memorandum statements, he had no criminal antecedents, no direct evidence linked him to the crime, the complainant did not identify him, and he had been incarcerated since October 29, 2025 with trial expected to take considerable time. Bail was granted with strict conditions including personal bond with two sureties and mandatory court appearances on all trial dates. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Dec-2025

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 05-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/10244/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to 19-year-old Sumit Sahu, arrested for robbery under Sections 309(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court found that while the applicant was implicated based solely on co-accused memorandum statements, he had no criminal antecedents, no direct evidence linked him to the crime, the complainant did not identify him, and he had been incarcerated since October 29, 2025 with trial expected to take considerable time. Bail was granted with strict conditions including personal bond with two sureties and mandatory court appearances on all 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