Latest 10 AFR Judgements with Case Note |
|
| 1 |
SALIK RAM CHANDRAKAR VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:58453]
Case Note : No retrospective promotion or retrospective seniority can be granted from a date when the employee had not even been borne in the cadre Such retrospective benefit, if conferred, would prejudicially effect the right of validly appointed direct recruits in the interregnum and are therefore, impermissible in law.
Case No : WPS/2012/2023
Date of Judgement : 02.12.2025
|
| 2 |
SANTKUMAR BANDHE VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:58274-DB]
Case Note : When there is overwhelming evidence with regard to participation of the accused (s) in the substantive offence in the question, acquitting some of the accused for the substantive offence and convicting them merely for conspiracy on mis- appreciation of evidence cannot be justified.
Case No : CRA/1428/2023
Date of Judgement : 02.12.2025
|
| 3 |
PRASEN KUMAR BHARGAV VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:56534-DB]
Case Note : " When the prosecution case is marred by a vitiated identification process, absence of scientific or medical corroboration, material contradiction in key witness statement, and significant investigative lapses, the evidentiary foundation becomes too weak to sustain conviction Even the sensitive offences,the law require prosecution to establish identity and participation of the accused with certainty Where such a doubtful, the benefit of doubt must necessarily follow in the favour of the accused".
Case No : CRA/1323/2022
Date of Judgement : 20.11.2025
|
| 4 |
DR. SAMRIDDHI DUBEY VS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:56543-DB]
Case Note : While granting admissions, especially to higher and specialised courses, merit must prevail to safeguard educaitonal standard relaxing merit at such levels under the guise institutional reservation or domicile reservation would risk compromising critical professional excellence.
Case No : WPC/5937/2025
Date of Judgement : 20.11.2025
|
| 5 |
RAHUL KUMAR DHRUVE VS PUBLIC GENERAL
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:56379]
Case Note : Nomination by the employee itself would not give right to claim succession certificate.
Case No : CR/196/2024
Date of Judgement : 19.11.2025
|
| 6 |
KU. PRABHA TOPPO VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:56370]
Case Note : " Sealed cover proceeding in respect of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) may be resorted to only in circumstances where a charge sheet has been filed before the competent Criminal Court, or where a memorandum of charges has been issued in a duly initiated departmental enuiry"
Case No : WPS/4247/2023
Date of Judgement : 19.11.2025
|
| 7 |
CHRISTIAN WOMANS BOARD OF MISSION VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:54533-DB]
Case Note : Renewal of lease is not an automatic or vested right. it remains a discretionary exercise conditional upon the lessee's scrupulous adherence to the terms of the original lease. A lease found to be in president breach of conditions or indulging in commercial misuse cannot claim equitable consideration for renewal. in such circumstances, the writ petitioner lacks the locus to seek or enforce renewal of the lease.
Case No : WA/715/2025
Date of Judgement : 10.11.2025
|
| 8 |
JAWAHAR CHANDRA VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:54141-DB]
Case Note : In a case where the victim the raped and done to death, if the trial court finds overwhelming evidence of a sexual assault on the victim,it cannot ignore the commission of rape and convict the accused solely for the murder, the judgement must take note of and record the conviction for all offences established by the evidence, including sexual assault, along side the homicidal act.
Case No : CRA/143/2025
Date of Judgement : 06.11.2025
|
| 9 |
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS RAJANO and ORS.
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:53766-DB]
Case Note : An accused cannot be acquitted solely on the ground that the Doctor, who has conducted the postmortem, has not been examined by the prosecution, whereas as per Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, the postmortem report is admissible even without examination of the Doctor coupled with other corroborative evidence which strongly supports the case of prosecution.
Case No : ACQA/418/2010
Date of Judgement : 04.11.2025
|
| 10 |
PRAHLAD PRASAD RATHOUR VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Neutral Citation : [2025:CGHC:53518-DB]
Case Note : Benefit of Section 24(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to be given to a C CL ( child conflict with law) which removes all disqualifications attached to a conviction or criminal proceeding aganist him.
Case No : WA/785/2025
Date of Judgement : 03.11.2025
|