LiveLaw Chhattisgarh High Court Half Yearly Digest: January - June, 2026
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 1 - 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 50Nominal IndexChaitanya Baghel vs Directorate Of Enforcement (MCRC 8716/2025) & Chaitanya Baghel vs State of Chhattisgarh: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 1M/s Eastman International v. Union of India & Ors: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 2Union of India & Ors. vs. Rakesh Kumar Rathore & Ors.: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 3Rajendra Kumar Vaid vs. State...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 1 - 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 50
Nominal Index
Chaitanya Baghel vs Directorate Of Enforcement (MCRC 8716/2025) & Chaitanya Baghel vs State of Chhattisgarh: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 1
M/s Eastman International v. Union of India & Ors: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 2
Union of India & Ors. vs. Rakesh Kumar Rathore & Ors.: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 3
Rajendra Kumar Vaid vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 4
Sanjeet Kumar Burman v. State of Chhattisgarh & tagged case: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 5
Minketan Chandra & Anr. v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 6
X v/s Y: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 7
Anwar Dhebar v. State of Chhattisgarh: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 8
Laxmikant Joshi v. Lokeshwari @ Parmeshwari: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 9
Akash Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 10
Ramkishna Pandey and Anr v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 11
Sujeet Sao and Ors v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 12
High Court of Chhattisgarh and Anr v. Ajit Choubelal Gohar and Anr: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 13
Ishwarilal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh and batch: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 14
Nijesh Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 15
Rampyare and Anr v. Ramkishun, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 16
Mahaveer Chaik v. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 17
Akash Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 18
MTD v. VD, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 19
A (Juvenile - Conflict With Law) v. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 20
Vasudeo Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 21
Vikas Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 22
Smt. Gudiya Nagesh & Anr. v. Nil, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 23
Chitranjan Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 24
High Court of Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 25
In The Matter Of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 26
Dheluram v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 27
Anup Bishra v. The State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 28
Dr. Rakesh Gupta v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 29
Neelam Kumar Deshmukh v. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 30
M/s Ramsaran Singh Projects LLP v. Wapcos Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 31
Badri Prasad Sahu & Anr. v/s State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 32
Dipti Mandavi vs. Shishir Kumar Sharma & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 33
CBI v/s Amit Jogi and batch, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 34
S.S. Tigga vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 35
Dilip Jha vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 36
Milauram and Anr v. The State Of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 37
Mangal Ram Usendi & Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 38
State of Chhattisgarh v. Oyami Ganga & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 39
Uttam Prasad Paikra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 40
Ram Prasad Nayak v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 41
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur vs. Mukund Hela & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 42
Vijay Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 43
Kunal Tarunakar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 44
Ranvir Singh & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 45
Anil Markende & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 46
DAV Public School v. Central Information Commission & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 47
M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. Garuda Ispat Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 48
Kamla Motors v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 49
State of Chhattisgarh v. Shravan Kumar Yadav @ Suraj, 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 50
FINAL ORDERS/JUDGMENTS
Chhattisgarh High Court Grants Bail To Chaitanya Baghel In Liquor Scam Case
Case Title: Chaitanya Baghel vs Directorate Of Enforcement (MCRC 8716/2025) & Chaitanya Baghel vs State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: MCRC 8224/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 1
The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted bail to Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chief Minister and Congress leader Bhupesh Baghel, in two cases related to the liquor scam. The case involved two interconnected investigations into a liquor syndicate scam, allegedly operating between 2019 and 2023.
The cases originated from an FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB)/Economic Offence Wing (EOW) on 17 January 2024, alleging systematic corruption involving the unauthorised sale of liquor, forgery of holograms, and commission-staking that caused a loss of approximately INR 4,000 crores to the state exchequer. Following this predicate offence, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) registered an ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) under the PMLA to investigate the laundering of these "proceeds of crime" through real estate projects and shell entities. The Applicant was arrested by the ED on 18 July 2025 and subsequently by the EOW on 24 September 2025.
Case Title: M/s Eastman International v. Union of India & Ors
Case Number: WPT No. 228 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 2
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that exporters who do not carry out exports through Letters of Credit (LoCs) cannot be denied exemption from export duty on parboiled rice solely on the ground that they failed to satisfy an LoC-related condition in a temporary exemption notification.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered the ruling while allowing the writ petition filed by a Ludhiana-based exporter engaged in the export of parboiled rice. The petitioner had challenged the levy and collection of 20 per cent export duty on its rice consignments during the brief period between 25 August 2023 and 15 October 2023.
Lateral Movement Between Posts Carrying Same Grade Pay Not A Promotion: Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. vs. Rakesh Kumar Rathore & Ors.
Case Number: WPS No. 1833 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 3
A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held that movements between posts with the same Grade Pay (like Goods Guard to Passenger Guard) are lateral inductions, not promotions. Therefore, such movements should not be counted against the limited number of MACP upgradations.
It was observed by the court that the financial upgradation should be based solely on the hierarchy of Grade Pays, which remained unchanged for the employees after they reached the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200. Relying upon the case of UOI vs. K. Bhaskaran, it was held that the movement of an employee from a post like Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guard within the same Grade Pay, constitutes a lateral induction. It is not a promotion for the purpose of the MACP Scheme.
Case Title: Rajendra Kumar Vaid vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Case Number: WA No. 802 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 4
A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that the uncommunicated adverse entries in an employee's Annual Confidential Reports can be considered for passing an order of compulsory retirement.
It was observed by the Court that the grading of the employee was Good or Very Good for some years but from 2010 onwards his performance, character, and integrity consistently deteriorated. It was also noted that a special report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, expressed non-compliance with directions and lack of diligence in duties. Hence, it was held by the court that the decision of the Screening Committee and the subsequent order of compulsory retirement were supported by sufficient material and could not be termed arbitrary or perverse.
Case Title: Sanjeet Kumar Burman v. State of Chhattisgarh & tagged case
Case Number: MCRCA No. 1996 & 1999 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 5
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently denied anticipatory bail to two persons accused of raising slogans in the courtroom, threatening another accused person, manhandling and obstructing police officials, who were discharging their lawful duties.
A Single Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha took the incident seriously and made it clear that any unlawful activity, having potential to disrupt judicial proceedings, cannot be taken lightly. It thus observed –
“The Court premises, including courtrooms and their immediate precincts, are required to be maintained as neutral, dignified, and inviolable spaces dedicated solely to the administration of justice. They are not meant to be used as venues for protests, demonstrations, or public agitations of any nature. Any unlawful assembly or demonstration within Court premises not only disrupts judicial proceedings but also poses a serious threat to the safety of litigants, advocates, judicial officers, and law enforcement personnel. Such acts, if condoned, would erode public confidence in the justice delivery system and encourage lawlessness.”
Compassionate Appointment Barred Where Co-Dependent Is Already Employed: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Minketan Chandra & Anr. v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: WA No. 964 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 6
A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma held that the compassionate appointment is governed by the policy in force on the date of the employee's death and cannot be granted where a dependent is already employed.
It was noted by the Court that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but an exception to the general rule of recruitment, intended solely to mitigate the immediate financial hardship of the family of a deceased employee. The policy applicable on the date of the employee's death governs the claim, and subsequent amendments cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly so provided.
Case Title: X v/s Y
Case Number: Second Appeal No. 116 of 2005
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 7
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Tuesday held that solemnisation of second marriage based on custom during the subsistence of the first marriage, is void as per Sections 5(i) and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act unless party proves that the custom permits such remarriage.
Clarifying the position of law, a Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held –
“The law on this point is clear. Under Sections 5(i) and 11 of the Act, 1955, a marriage contracted during the subsistence of an earlier valid marriage is void ab initio. Even in cases where a subsequent marriage is claimed to have occurred according to a customary practice, the burden is on the party asserting such custom to specifically plead and strictly prove that the custom permits remarriage during the lifetime of the first spouse.”
Case Title: Anwar Dhebar v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: MCRC No. 8136 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 8
The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted regular bail to businessman Anwar Dhebar in connection with the alleged rice custom milling scam being probed by the State EOW/ACB. The Court observed that the material presently relied upon by the prosecution does not justify continued detention, especially when the investigation qua the applicant stands completed.
Justice Arvind Kumar Verma heard the bail plea under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in relation to offences under Sections 384, 409, 120-B IPC and Sections 11, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: Laxmikant Joshi v. Lokeshwari @ Parmeshwari
Case Number: First Appeal (MAT) No. 87 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 9
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a Family Court's decision whereby custody of a 7-year old child (respondent 2) from his biological mother (respondent 1) was refused to be transferred to the appellant—father on the grounds that he kept a second wife without obtaining a decree of divorce from his first wife.
As the minor was already getting requisite love and affection from his biological mother, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma held,
“This Court cannot be oblivious of the future aspect that there is no certainty that the child will get better love and affection as also good atmosphere from her step-mother, in comparison to what he has been receiving from her mother since birth.”
Case Title: Akash Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case Number: WPCR No. 553 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 10
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Wednesday (January 21) ordered the State to pay Rs. 1 Lakh compensation to a law student who was illegally arrested by the police without registration of any FIR and mechanically remanded to judicial custody bereft of any cognizable offence.
Emphasising the value of personal liberty and dignity, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal remarked –
“…we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner, along with his parents has suffered severe mental, emotional, and financial hardship due to illegal detention. The humiliation and harassment occurring in custody, irrespective of its precise medical cause, is sufficient to engage the State's constitutional obligation under Article 21 to compensate the victim and for the violation of their right to a dignified life...In the present case, the petitioner, a law-abiding citizen and hotel owner, has been subjected to humiliation, loss of liberty and social stigma on account of the illegal acts of the police officials and the consequential unlawful remand. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be compensated for the violation of his fundamental rights".
Case Title: Ramkishna Pandey and Anr v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors
Case Number: WPC No. 87 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 11
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the cancellation of a 2016 gift deed executed by an elderly octogenarian couple (respondents 2 and 3) in favour of their nephew (petitioner 1), holding that failure to provide care and basic needs amounts to breach of an implied condition under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (2007 Act).
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas referred to Section 23 of the 2007 Act, which provides that where any senior citizen who has transferred by gift his property on the condition that transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such transferee fails to provide the same, then the said transfer shall be deemed to have been made under fraud, coercion or undue influence and shall, at the option of the transferor, be declared void.
Examining the gift deed in question, the Single Judge observed that it demonstrated that it was initially executed out of sheer care and affection shown by petitioner 1 in favour of the respondents. However, after gauging the conduct of petitioner 1, the Single Judge observed that he had failed to discharge his obligation towards the respondents, and held,
“… it is quite vivid that though not explicit but implied condition of taking such care would continue throughout the life time of respondents No. 2 and 3 exists, thereby it needs not be expressed as written condition to declare the gift deed to be null and void by invoking provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 2007 in view of the fact that the Act of 2007 is a beneficial legislation and a strict view will defeat its aims and object. Therefore, it is an implicit condition attached to this transfer of property by way of gift which was not fulfilled by the transferee…”
Case Title: Sujeet Sao and Ors v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors
Case Number: WPCR No. 11 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 12
The Chhattisgarh High Court has expressed serious concern over the handling of a case by the Bhilai police authorities, in which the petitioners alleged that they were booked over a trivial issue and subjected to mental and physical custodial torture, illegal handcuffing and public parading, where they were allegedly forced to chant derogatory slogans.
The incident arose out of a purported trivial verbal spat between the petitioners and the complainant in a cinema hall, pursuant to which the theatre staff called the police.
According to the petitioners, as the police authorities were harbouring pre-determined antipathy against them and they maliciously distorted the incident by giving it a false colour of offences involving outraging the modesty of a woman and assaulting police personnel. Therefore, they were booked under several offences of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
In the process, it was alleged that the petitioners were subjected to custodial torture and despite judicial remand being granted, the police authorities handcuffed and publicly paraded the petitioners and also forced them to chant "Apradh Karna Paap Hai, Police Hamara Baap Hai". Additionally, they were allegedly denied prompt medical examination despite visible injuries.
Taking note of the alleged misconduct of the authorities, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed thus,
"…there are procedural lapses and actions on the part of the police authorities which warrant serious concern. The conduct complained of alleging unlawful arrest, failure to observe statutory and judicial safeguards, inordinate delay in medical examination, and alleged humiliation of the petitioners, are matters which strike at the very core of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee the fundamental right to life, liberty, and dignity of every citizen. The allegations, if established, demonstrate a disregard for the rule of law and the constitutional safeguards enshrined for the protection of individuals against excesses in police action.”
Case Title: High Court of Chhattisgarh and Anr v. Ajit Choubelal Gohar and Anr
Case Number: WA No. 62 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 13
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a single judge order permitting a probationary employee (Respondent-1) of the Principal District and Session Court to attend his third-year of LLB course as a regular student, holding that such permission has direct implications on administrative discipline, office functioning, and statutory compliance.
Case Title: Ishwarilal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh and batch
Case Number: WPC No. 6013 of 2024 and batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 14
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the right of land losers— to acquire rehabilitation and employment— is a logical corollary of Article 21, and denial of such a benefit is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
In this regard, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma explained,
“Right of the land losers to get employment as per the rehabilitation policy is extremely important right and that has to be considered in accordance with law and in accordance with the policy in force on the date of acquisition of their land and subsequent change in guideline of CIL (Coal India Limited) will not take away their accrued right, if any, that has accrued to them by acquisition of their lands. Thus, the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of employment is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21.”
Case Title: Nijesh Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: WPS No. 2604 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 15
The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to grant relief to an individual— who filed an application for compassionate appointment after an inordinate delay of 14 years after the death of his father, holding that the underlying objective of compassionate appointments is to provide immediate succour, and not serve as a delayed channel of public employment decades after the death of the deceased.
In this regard, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad reiterated that compassionate appointments must be confined to situations of pressing financial need at the time of the demise, and once the crisis has subsided, the basis for compassionate appointment ceases to exist. Elaborating further, the Single-Judge stated,
“The scheme of compassionate appointment has been carved out as a narrow exception to the general rule of recruitment and is intended solely to mitigate the immediate financial hardship suffered by the family upon the sudden death of a government employee. It is not intended to provide employment as a matter of inheritance nor to revive claims after the passage of several decades.”
Case Title: Rampyare and Anr v. Ramkishun
Case Number: SA No. 183 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 16
The Chhattisgarh High Court has explained that the presumption contemplated under Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act (IEA) in respect of documents more than 30 years old does not apply to Wills, as a Will is required to be proved by strict compliance with statutory provisions governing its execution and attestation.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru explained that “a will speaks only from the death of the testator and remains revocable during his lifetime; therefore, its genuineness cannot be presumed merely on account of its antiquity.”
Rape An Affront To Womanhood, 'Brutally Infringes' Right To Life: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Number: CRA No. 18 of 2005
Case Title: Mahaveer Chaik v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 17
While upholding a rape conviction, the Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that the offence of rape is an “affront to womanhood” and constitutes a brazen violation of several aspects of Article 21 such as dignity, bodily privacy, and personal liberty.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas observed, "Rape is one of the gravest and most heinous offences against a woman. It is an affront to womanhood itself, striking at the core of her dignity, modesty, and honour. The offence inflicts deep and lasting trauma, shattering her sense of self, autonomy, and confidence. It is not merely a crime against an individual, but an offence against society at large. Such an act amounts to a brutal invasion of the most cherished fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, namely, the right to life with dignity, bodily privacy, and personal liberty.”
Case Number: WPCR No. 553 of 2025
Case Title: Akash Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 18
The Chhattisgarh High Court has come down heavily on police officials for the illegal arrest, alleged custodial violence, and continuous harassment and humiliation meted out to a hotel owner, holding that the unwarranted incarceration resulted in a “serious infringement” of fundamental rights of personal liberty and dignity.
While the petitioner was lawfully running his licensed hotel, it was alleged that local police repeatedly interfered with the hotel's functioning.
Case Title: MTD v. VD
Case No: WP227 No. 158 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 19
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a Family Court order allowing a husband to produce the call recordings and WhatsApp chats of his wife in their divorce proceedings.
While rejecting the objections of the wife on the ground of violation of her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Bench of Justice Sachin Singh Rajput made it clear that the 'right to privacy' being a personal right must yield to the 'right to a fair trial' which impacts public justice.
Case Number: CRR No. 1503 of 2025
Case Title: A (Juvenile - Conflict With Law) v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 20
While denying bail to a juvenile accused of a heinous murder, the Chhattisgarh High Court has explained that bail cannot be claimed by a juvenile as a matter of right, as the nature and gravity of the crime committed has to be taken into due consideration.
Justice Arvind Kumar Verma referred to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), which provides that— when a child is alleged to have committed an offence and is brought before a Juvenile Justice Board, such person shall be released on bail or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person.
Case Title: Vasudeo Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case No: CRA No. 355 of 2005
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 21
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Monday (February 16) held that keeping male organ over vagina and subsequently ejaculating without penetration cannot be called as 'rape' under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which rather constitute an 'attempt to rape' and shall be punishable under Section 376/511 of the IPC.
While altering a rape conviction to one for attempt to rape, the Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas observed –
“Indecent assault is often magnified into attempts at rape. In order to come to a conclusion that the conduct of the accused was indicative of the determination to gratify his passion at all events, and in spite of all resistance, materials must exist. As already discussed above, the sine qua non of the offence of rape is penetration, and not ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape.”
Case Number: CRMP No. 8 of 2026
Case Title: Vikas Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 22
The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that school premises can be construed as a 'place for custody of property' where school furniture and educational assets are kept in custody, and can consequently attract the offence of house trespass under Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Smt. Gudiya Nagesh & Anr. v. Nil
Case No: FA(MAT) No. 344 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 23
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that if a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe (ST) voluntarily chooses to follow Hindu customs, rites and traditions in order to get 'Hinduised' and opts to submit himself to the jurisdictional Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the HMA'), he cannot be denied its cover merely because Section 2(2) thereof excludes its application to the ST community.
Case Number: WA No. 64 of 2026
Case Title: Chitranjan Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 24
While reiterating that study leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld an order of a Single-Judge, whereby the plea of a Mathematics Lecturer (appellant)– serving at Government Polytechnic College, seeking study leave to pursue PhD was rejected.
The appellant had applied for permission to pursue higher studies before the Principal of the College, who forwarded his application to the Secretary, Department of Skill Development. Subsequently, his application was accepted, and he took admission in the Government Nagarjun Post-Graduate Science College, Raipur, and later submitted an application seeking study leave.
Case Number: WPCR No. 88 of 2016
Case Title: High Court of Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 25
The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed a criminal complaint involving serious allegations against a former Chief Justice, a sitting High Court Judge, and several members of the State's Higher Judicial Service.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru remarked that the complaint was founded merely on conjectures, and that permitting omnibus accusations against members of the judiciary and public servants to proceed without foundational facts would seriously impair institutional integrity and “open floodgates for disgruntled litigants or officers to level reckless allegations”.
After State Action, Chhattisgarh High Court Closes Suo Motu PIL Over Child Electrocution Deaths
Case Number: WPPIL No. 84 of 2025
Case Title: In The Matter Of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 26
Following effective State action, the Chhattisgarh High Court has consigned to the records a suo-motu Public Interest Litigation concerning the recurring instances of electrocutions caused on account of unauthorised live-wires, which resulted in the loss of human lives, cattle and wild animals.
The suo-motu PIL was initiated in 2025, in response to two alarming incidents of electrocution of children reported in an English daily. The first report related to District Kondagaon, where a two and a half year-old child died after coming in contact with a live-wire inside a local Anganwadi Centre. The child, while playing inside the Centre, collapsed immediately after receiving a severe electric shock. The report further stated that repeated complaints were made to the concerned authorities regarding exposed wires, damaged switches, and unsafe electrical fittings in the Centre, however the same had remained unaddressed.
Case Number: WPCR No. 133 of 2026
Case Title: Dheluram v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 27
While directing the competent authorities to expeditiously decide the parole application of a 68-year old prisoner suffering from a serious medical condition requiring imminent treatment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has emphasised that the right to life, guaranteed under Article 21, includes within its ambit the right to timely and adequate medical treatment.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was dealing with a writ petition filed by the prisoner (petitioner)- who was stated to be suffering from a serious medical condition called gangrene.
Case Number: MCRC No. 2308 of 2026
Case Title: Anup Bishra v. The State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 28
The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted bail to a 19-year-old, 12th class student, who was arrested after 40 bulk litres of country made Mahua (country) liquor were allegedly seized from his possession.
Upon receipt of information, police officials of Saraypali District conducted a raid and seized the aforesaid quantity of liquor from the alleged possession of the applicant, and subsequently registered an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act for illegal possession of liquor.
Case Title: Dr. Rakesh Gupta v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case Number: WPS No. 773 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 29
The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed the appointment of Ashwani Gurdekar as Registrar of the Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council, holding that under Section 26 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, the Registrar must be appointed by the State Pharmacy Council with the prior sanction of the State Government, and not directly by the Government.
Justice Parth Prateem Sahu was hearing a writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 (Ashwani Gurdekar) to the post of Registrar of the Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council.
Case Number: CRA No. 786 of 2023
Case Title: Neelam Kumar Deshmukh v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 30
While upholding the conviction of a man for rape of a deaf and dumb woman, the Chhattisgarh High Court has emphasised that a witness— who is unable to speak, can depose in Court through gestures or demonstrative methods, and such testimony shall be treated as substantive oral evidence.
In the present case, the victim- a young woman, deaf and dumb since birth, was raped by one of her relatives (accused), while her parents were not present in their house. When the victim's parents returned home, she communicated the incident through gestures and indicated the accused as the perpetrator. Consequently, an FIR was lodged, and during the investigation process, the victim's statements were recorded through an interpreter.
Case Number: WPC No. 5479 of 2025
Case Title: M/s Ramsaran Singh Projects LLP v. Wapcos Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 31
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the disqualification of a contractor from a government tender process related to the construction of an Eklavya Model Residential School (EMRS).
M/s Ramsaran Singh Projects LLP (Petitioner 1)— engaged in civil construction work, challenged the validity of an e-mail issued by WAPCOS Limited, a Government of India Undertaking (respondent 1), whereby the bid submitted by Petitioner 1 in response to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for construction of EMRS at Kanker, having an estimated cost of Rs. 31,52,70,889/- excluding GST, was declared technically disqualified in the bid evaluation process. The rejection was handed down because the bank guarantee furnished by petitioner 1 towards bid security was valid upto 18.10.2025, the NIT prescribed that the bid security was to remain valid for 45 days beyond the final bid validity period i.e. upto 04.01.2026.
Case title: Badri Prasad Sahu & Anr. v/s State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
WPC No. 1281 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 32
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently observed that there is no law restraining any one from organizing prayer meeting in their dwelling house and thus no prior permission is needed from any authority for conducting such a prayer meeting if it is organized without violating any law.
In doing so the court granted relief to two persons who had moved the high court challenging notices issued by the Police restraining them from oragnizing prayer meetings for Christians inside their own dwelling home.
Case Name : Dipti Mandavi vs. Shishir Kumar Sharma & Others
Case No. : WA No. 201 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 33
A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that the transfer of an officer engaged in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls without prior approval of the Election Commission violates Section 13CC of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and therefore, is arbitrary.
Case title: CBI v/s Amit Jogi and batch
ACQA No. 66 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 34
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Thursday (April 2) convicted former MLA and former Chief Minister Ajit Jogi's son Amit Jogi for the murder of Nationalist Congress Party leader Ram Avtar Jaggi in 2003.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma noted that he was the "mastermind, principal architect and driving force behind the conspiracy".
The court also said that it cannot "sit helplessly as a silent spectator if a party to a case is deliberately trying to adopt dilatory tactics". This, the court said after noting that despite having sufficient time to prepare his case, Jogi had sought adjournments and did not make the slightest effort to commence arguments.
Merit-Cum-Seniority; Seniority Can't Be Applied Mechanically Not Evaluating Merit: Chhattisgarh HC
Case Name : S.S. Tigga vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Case No. : WA No. 265 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 35
A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that under the principle of merit-cum-seniority, the DPC must first make a comparative assessment of merit, and seniority can be used only as a tiebreaker, not as the sole basis for promotion.
Case title - Dilip Jha vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 36
The Chhattisgarh High Court last week refused to quash a criminal case against a professor working at Guru Ghasidas Central University, Bilaspur, for allegedly forcing Hindu students to offer Namaz during an NSS camp in March last year.
Case Number: CRA No. 538 of 2005
Case Title: Milauram and Anr v. The State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 37
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that in cases involving an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is imperative for the prosecution to establish that the complainant/victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Tribe community, and that the offender does not, thereby making filing of a valid caste certificate a sine qua non.
For reference- Section 3(1)(r) punishes any person who, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
Case Name : Mangal Ram Usendi & Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors
Case No. : WA No. 310 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 38
A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that service of Shiksha Karmis governed by Panchayat rules are not entitled to pay scales or other benefits applicable to teachers of the School Education Department.
Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Oyami Ganga & Ors.
Case No: ACQA No. 85 of 2014
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 39
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld acquittal of all 10 accused persons in an April 2010 attack which occurred in Tadmetla forest of Dantewada, claiming lives of 75 CRPF personnel and one member of State Police.
Case Name : Uttam Prasad Paikra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Case No. : WA No. 366 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 40
A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy (protecting employees with less than one year of service from transfer) does not apply when the employee has more than one year of service remaining before retirement.
Acquittal On Merits Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Full Back Wages: Chhattisgarh HC
Case Name : Ram Prasad Nayak v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Case No. : WA No.358 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 41
A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that an employee dismissed due to criminal conviction is not entitled to back wages merely because he is acquitted, since the principle of “no work no pay” applies and acquittal does not automatically erase the consequences of the conviction.
Case Name : Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur vs. Mukund Hela & Ors.
Case No. : WA No. 429 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 42
A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely because another family member is employed, without assessing the family's actual financial distress, especially when the policy's humanitarian object is to provide immediate relief.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case No: CRA No. 305 of 2005
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 43
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that commission of rape on a woman leads to loss of her dignity and self-esteem in Indian society, which are sufficient to lead her to take the extreme step of taking away her own life and therefore, a rape convict can be held guilty for abetting suicide of the victim. [2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 43]
Case Title: Kunal Tarunakar v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case No: MCRC No. 5244 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 44
The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed a 21-year-old man accused of abetting suicide, who is currently in judicial custody, to appear in the upcoming NEET-UG examination under police custody/escort.[2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 44]
Case Title: Ranvir Singh & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh
[MCRC No. 10544 of 2025].
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 45
The Chhattisgarh High Court has termed as a "mere eye-wash" the imposition of a fine of Rs. 500 on an Investigating Officer for furnishing incorrect information before the Court that a bail applicant had 19 criminal antecedents. Observing that portraying a person as having multiple criminal antecedents when no such antecedents existed was a very serious matter, the Court directed the Director General of Police to reconsider the action taken against the concerned official and also seek an explanation from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jashpur.
Case Title: Anil Markende & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh
[CRA No. 1423 of 2017].
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 46
The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted two public servants convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that in the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, coupled with the absence of voice samples or any FSL report, the recorded conversations relied upon by the prosecution could not be relied upon.
Case Title: DAV Public School v. Central Information Commission & Ors.
[WPC No. 3145 of 2020] and connected matters.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 47
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a private educational institution does not become a "public authority" under the Right to Information Act, 2005 merely because a Public Sector Undertaking reimburses the deficit arising from concessional fees charged to the wards of its employees. The Court observed that such a contractual financial arrangement cannot be construed as "substantial financing" so as to attract the provisions of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Case Title: M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. Garuda Ispat Private Limited
[WP227 No. 67 of 2025]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 48
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that an order passed by a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) without formally terminating conciliation proceedings and without conducting arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a nullity in the eyes of law. Such an order can be challenged even at the execution stage as a jurisdictional objection
Case Title: Kamla Motors v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
WPC No. 598 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 49
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the Chhattisgarh State Backward Class Commission is an advisory and recommendatory body and has no jurisdiction to direct recovery of money in a commercial dispute. The Court observed that while the Commission's advice may ordinarily be binding on the State Government under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Pichhda Varg Aayog Adhiniyam, 1995, it cannot usurp the powers of a competent authority by issuing what is, in substance, a recovery order.
Case title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Shravan Kumar Yadav @ Suraj
CRR No. 637 of 2018
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 50
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that confiscation of a vehicle under Section 47-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act cannot be sustained on the basis of a presumption that all seized bottles contained liquor exceeding the statutory limit. The Court observed that before invoking the power of confiscation, the competent authority must satisfy itself on the basis of reliable evidence that the seized substance was liquor in a quantity exceeding five bulk litres, and such satisfaction cannot rest upon presumptions unsupported by material evidence.