Chhattisgarh High Court
CRA/2241/2026 of OM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 7 October 2026
2026:CGHC:43735 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.2241 of 2026 1 - Om Prakash Sharma S/o Late Ram Pravesh Sharma Aged About 41 Years R/o Kelo Vihar, Near Main Gate, S.E.C.L. Office, Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.), Aadhar No. 3253-6183-7856 2 - Pushpendra Sahu S/o Shri
CGHC010317732026
2026:CGHC:43735
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No.2241 of 2026
1 - Om Prakash Sharma S/o Late Ram Pravesh Sharma Aged About 41
Years R/o Kelo Vihar, Near Main Gate, S.E.C.L. Office, Raigarh, Dist.
Raigarh (C.G.), Aadhar No. 3253-6183-7856
2 - Pushpendra Sahu S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Thakurdiya, Kharsiya, Dist Raigarh (C.G.) Aadhar No.
8933-9262-4359
3 - Amrit Lal Shrivas S/o Shri G.R. Shrivas Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 115, Jaistambh Chouck, Gopalpur, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.)
Aadhar No. 2486-8777-4109
4 - Rajneesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri U.P. Tiwari Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 13 R-4, Kranti Nagar, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) Aadhar No.
3973-3815-2623
Appellant (s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.) City Kotwali, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.)
2 - Vikas Niganiya S/o Dinesh Niganiya Aged About 37 Years R/o Krishna Vihar Colony, Jindal Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And Dist. Raigarh,
C.G.
Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s)
:
Ms. Priyanshi Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Devershi Thakur, Advocate
For Respondent No.1
:
Mr. Vinod Tekam, GA
For Respondent No.2
Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate
Digitally
signed
by R
NIRALA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 08/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the appellants do not want to pursue the instant criminal appeal, hence they may be permitted to withdraw the same.
2. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Nirala