Chhattisgarh High Court
MCC/788/2026 of JAMES SINGH Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 4 October 2026
2026:CGHC:43004-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 788 of 2026 1 - James Singh S/o Basant Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 50, Seepat Road, Near Surya Vihar, Lingyadih, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Christopher Weshly S/o Dr. O Weshly Shalom Aged About 57
CGHC010316942026
2026:CGHC:43004-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 788 of 2026
1 - James Singh S/o Basant Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 50, Seepat Road, Near Surya Vihar, Lingyadih, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Christopher Weshly S/o Dr. O Weshly Shalom Aged About 57 Years (Spelling Wrongly Mentioned As Kistofar Wessley In Order Sheet) R/o Near Pallav Bhawan, Gaurav Path, Ring Road 2, Vashundhra Nagar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Neeraj Kumar S/o Ashok Raut Aged About 35 Years R/o House No.
9/1102, Near Sheetal Tower, Bhartiya Nagar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Gaurav Dhankar S/o Manglu Ram Dhankar Aged About 35 Years R/o Nandeshwar Mandir, Chantidih, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s)
:
Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri
Krushna Ram Mohapatra
, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice
05/10/2026
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. The present MCC has been filed for extension of time to deposit the cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) before the Registry, as directed vide order dated 20.07.2026, by which W.P.(Cr.) No. 398/2026 was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned counsel for the petitioner was on adjustment from 21.07.2026 to 24.07.2026. Thus, he could not communicate the said order to the petitioner for compliance. However, the present MCC has been filed for extension of time to deposit the cost of Rs. 2,000/- in terms of order dated 20.07.2026.
3. Learned State counsel does not have any objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the present MCC is disposed of with a direction that the cost of Rs. 2,000/- shall be deposited by the petitioner, as directed vide order dated 20.07.2026, within a period of one week hence with the Registry of this Court and, on receipt of the same, the Registry shall act in accordance with the direction of this Court.
5. It is made clear that no further prayer of such nature shall be entertained at the instance of the petitioner in future.
6. The present MCC is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra) Judge Chief Justice sagrika