1. The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by a Raipur resident seeking benefits under the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Samman Nidhi Scheme. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal upheld the earlier rejection of his claim.

The appellant, who claimed detention under MISA during the Emergency (1975–1977), argued that he was eligible for financial assistance under the 2008 scheme. However, his application had been rejected by authorities based on police reports citing multiple criminal cases against him.

The Court noted that under the scheme’s rules, beneficiaries must have been detained solely for political or social reasons and must not have criminal antecedents. A statutory committee had already found the appellant ineligible on this ground.

Importantly, the Court held that the appellant failed to challenge the committee’s decision directly, instead contesting only the Collector’s communication. On this procedural ground alone, the writ petition was not maintainable.

Finding no legal error or violation of natural justice, the High Court refused to interfere and dismissed the appeal. See More

2. The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Mosh Varaya Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. challenging the rejection of its technical bid in a coal mining equipment tender issued by SECL.

The court held that SECL acted in accordance with the tender conditions, which required the equipment to be “newly developed” and not previously deployed in any Indian mine. The petitioner had offered a continuous miner (MC-350), but the tender committee found that the same model had already been deployed at an SECL mine, making it ineligible.

The petitioner argued that its version was an indigenous, newly developed variant and that the rejection was arbitrary. However, SECL relied on a pre-bid clarification stating that previously deployed models would not be accepted. The Independent External Monitors also upheld the rejection.

The High Court emphasized that judicial review in tender matters is limited and courts should not interfere with technical evaluations unless there is arbitrariness or mala fide intent. It found no such infirmity in the decision-making process.

Accordingly, the court upheld the rejection of the bid and dismissed the petition. See More

3. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that once permanent alimony is granted under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, courts cannot simultaneously award monthly maintenance. It therefore set aside the Family Court’s direction granting ₹6,000 per month, noting that ₹8 lakh had already been awarded as lump sum alimony. Relying on Rakesh Malhotra v. Krishna Malhotra, the Court emphasized that permanent alimony is intended to be final, and any change in circumstances must be addressed through modification proceedings rather than parallel relief. At the same time, it granted the wife liberty to seek enhancement of the ₹8 lakh amount by filing a proper application before the Family Court, which has been directed to decide the issue within four months in line with Rajnesh v. Neha. The Court also recorded that the alimony amount has been deposited and can be withdrawn by the wife, and disposed of both appeals accordingly. See More

4. The Chhattisgarh High Court granted conditional bail to a 19-year-old Class 12 student, Anup Bishra, accused of possessing 40 bulk litres of mahua liquor under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The Court noted the defence argument that the alleged recovery was from a shared open space, casting doubt on conscious possession, and also considered claims of improper measurement of the seized liquor. It took into account the applicant’s young age, lack of criminal antecedents, ongoing board examinations, and the fact that he had been in custody since February 22, 2026.

Despite the State’s objection citing the seriousness of the offence and pending investigation, the Court held that continued custody was not necessary at this stage. It granted bail with conditions, including regular appearance before the trial court, no unnecessary adjournments, and mandatory presence during key stages of the trial. See More

5. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld an appellate court order directing a fresh trial in a case involving alleged embezzlement of over ₹26 lakh by a police constable, Satya Prakash Bhagat. The original trial had ended in acquittal after the prosecution failed to examine a single witness despite multiple opportunities over 28 hearings.

The High Court rejected Bhagat’s challenge to the retrial, holding that serious criminal cases cannot be allowed to fail prosecutorial lapses. Relying on Bablu Kumar v. State of Bihar (2015), the Court stressed that trial judges must ensure justice is not defeated by administrative inefficiency.

It noted that all key witnesses were government officials whose repeated non-appearance raised institutional concerns. Upholding the remand, the Court directed expeditious retrial within five months, mandated regular hearings, and fixed responsibility on senior police officers to secure witness attendance. See More

6. The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the conviction of a Labour Inspector in a corruption case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of bribe.

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha allowed the appeal of Suresh Kurre, who had been convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The Court found that the allegation of demand was based solely on the complainant’s uncorroborated testimony, while panch witnesses did not support the prosecution’s version of events.

It also noted that there was no evidence of any pending payment requiring the accused’s intervention, as the authority to release funds lay with a higher official. Further, the recorded conversations relied upon by the prosecution were not properly authenticated and could not be treated as reliable evidence.

Reiterating that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient without proof of demand and acceptance, the Court found serious gaps in the prosecution’s case and the possibility of false implication due to prior disputes. Granting the benefit of doubt, it acquitted the accused and set aside the conviction and sentence. See More

7. The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted a former SECL Personnel Manager, Jitendra Nath Mukherjee, in a corruption case dating back to 2004, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice Rajani Dubey, in a judgment dated March 18, 2026, set aside Mukherjee’s 2006 conviction by a Special CBI Court, which had found him guilty of accepting ₹5,000 to process a provident fund advance application.

The Court noted that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient without clear proof of both demand and acceptance. It highlighted serious gaps in the prosecution’s case, including the absence of the original PF application, unreliable witness testimonies, and lack of corroboration of the complainant’s allegations.

Reaffirming settled law that proof of demand is the sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court held that suspicion cannot substitute proof. Finding the prosecution case deficient, it allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. See More

8. The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a senior medical officer challenging the State’s decision to initiate criminal proceedings over alleged irregularities in the procurement of PET-CT Scan and Gamma Camera machines worth ₹18.45 crore at Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur.

The petitioner, Dr. Vevek Choudhary, contended that he had only an advisory role and sought to quash the inquiry report and the government’s recommendation to register an FIR. The State argued that a committee had found prima facie procedural lapses, including lack of proper approvals.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that the petitioner had an active role in the process by providing technical and financial inputs. The Court further ruled that the inquiry was only fact-finding in nature and did not require adherence to principles of natural justice at that stage.

Reiterating that a prospective accused has no right to be heard before registration of an FIR, the Court found the petition meritless, dismissed it, and allowed the investigation to proceed while vacating interim protection. See More

9. The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an appeal seeking recovery of ₹21.18 lakh, holding that self-prepared account statements and credit memos, unsupported by original records or independent evidence, are insufficient to establish liability. Reiterating that entries in books of account under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act require corroboration, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof, while the defendants’ evidence of payment appeared more credible. The trial court’s dismissal of the suit was upheld. See More

10. Chhattisgarh High Court partly allowed appeals arising from a fatal road accident, holding that absence of a valid fitness certificate constitutes a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, absolving the insurer of ultimate liability. Applying the “pay and recover” principle, the insurer was directed to first satisfy the enhanced compensation and recover the amount from the vehicle owner and driver; compensation was increased after reassessing income and granting 40% future prospects. See More

11. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the validity of the Chhattisgarh State Municipal Services Rules, 2017 and the 2018 relaxation order, ruling that inclusion of Revenue Inspectors as a feeder cadre for promotion to Chief Municipal Officer (Class B) is a policy decision within the State’s domain. The Court reiterated that service structuring, eligibility criteria, and promotional avenues fall within executive discretion unless shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. It further held that promotion is not a fundamental right and that rule-relaxation powers, when exercised within statutory limits and on objective grounds, are legally sustainable. See More

12. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the life sentence of Kusumlal Sao for the 2019 murder of Saurabh Panda in Sarangarh-Bilaigarh district, affirming his conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

The Court found that the prosecution had established a complete and consistent chain of circumstantial evidence. This included forensic recovery of blood-stained items from the accused’s house, seizure of weapons, medical evidence confirming homicidal death due to severe head injuries, and electronic evidence indicating a quarrel and last-seen circumstances linking the accused with the deceased.

The accused’s unexplained injuries and the suspicious dumping of the body in an inaccessible agricultural field further strengthened the case. Despite some hostile witnesses, the Court held that reliable portions of testimony, corroborated by scientific evidence, were sufficient.

Concluding that the evidence ruled out any reasonable doubt, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the life imprisonment, while noting the accused’s right to approach the Supreme Court. See More