Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1854 (CHH)

SURAJ NIRMALKAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

CRR/176/2026 · 2026-02-03

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:6188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 176 of 2026 1 - Suraj Nirmalkar S/o Shri Kamlesh Nirmalkar Aged About 25 Years R/o Bazar Mohalla Dagori, Police Station - Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Mohan Nirmalkar S/o Shri Santosh Nirmalkar Aged About 29 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Kamlesh Nirmalkar In Final Report Prepare Under Section 193 Of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 And The Order Dated 14.08.2025 Passed In Session Case No. 188/2025), R/o Bazaar Mohalla Dagori, Police Station - Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station - GRP Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Pardeshi Kaushik S/o Late Shri Kali Ram Kaushik Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Aawas Para Dagori, Police Station - Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Sulochana Bai W/o Shri Pardeshi Kaushik Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Aawas Para Dagori, Police Station - Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicants : Ms. Ananya Chatterjee, Adv. For State : Ms. Vithika Choubey, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.04 16:54:41 +0530 2 Order on Board 04 / 02 / 2026 1. The applicants have preferred this petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023, against the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned 11th District and Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 188/2025, whereby the charge under Section 306/34 of the IPC has been framed against the applicants/accused persons. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that she wants to withdraw this petition. She also prays to return the certified copy of the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to this proposition put forth by the counsel for the applicants. 4. Prayer is allowed. 5. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order to the counsel for the applicants, after retaining a photocopy of the same. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu