[CITATIONS: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 1-2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 15]NOMINAL 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) 15]
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
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.”