Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2020 DAILYLAW 587 (CHH)

GIRISH KUMAR SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

ACQA/42/2020 · 2026-02-22

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2020

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 42 of 2020 1 - Girish Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Pushkarlal Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Khartuli, Post Office Potiyadih, P.S. Arjuni, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Incharg Officer Arjuni, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manish Kumar Anand @ Rahul S/o Anand Kumar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sinaguda, Post Markel, P.S. Nagarnar, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Manoj Kumar Choubey S/o Let Hariprasad Choubey Aged About 50 Years R/o Bhatagoan Ward No. 06, P.S. Purani Basti, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Ramayan Prasad Gupta S/o Let Shri Laxman Prasad Gupta Aged About 52 Years R/o Bhatagoan Ward No. 06, P.S. Purani Basti, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Yashwant Kumar Sahu S/o Let Sawant Ram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o M.G.M. Ward Kanker, P.S. City Cotwali District Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant (s) : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate For State For Respondent No. 2 : : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 23.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Tarun Dansena, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. Supriya Upasane, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1/ State and Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2. None appeared for the other respondents. 2. Manish Kumar Anand @ Rahul, Respondent No. 2 has also appeared in person before this Court. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the parties have entered into compromise and now the appellant does not want to press the present acquittal appeal. 4. The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respective respondents. 5. On due submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the acquittal appeal No. 42/2020 is dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.24 10:04:30 +0530