NITIN DNYANOBA BEDGE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — ABA/681/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 17th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010125592026
Filing Number
ABA/5312/2026
Filing Date
12-03-2026
Registration No
ABA/681/2026
Registration Date
12-03-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. N. LADDHA
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. N. LADDHA
Bench Type
Single
Category
BAIL ( 51 )
Sub-Category
Anticipatory ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NITIN DNYANOBA BEDGE
Adv. HARSHWARDHAN M PAWAR
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. N. LADDHA
FRESH ADMISSION (ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATIONS)
FOR CIRCULATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | FRESH ADMISSION (ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATIONS) |
| 04-05-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
Orders
The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to Nitin Dnyanoba Bedge in a case involving alleged immoral trafficking charges. The court found insufficient evidence to establish ownership of the spa premises (applicant merely signed as witness, not owner) or his knowledge of illegal activities, noting that victim statements before the magistrate contained no imputations against him and no substantive material (CCTV footage, rope evidence) was seized or documented. Bail was granted on a ₹25,000 personal recognizance bond with conditions against tampering with evidence or contacting victims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to Nitin Dnyanoba Bedge in a case involving alleged immoral trafficking charges. The court found insufficient evidence to establish ownership of the spa premises (applicant merely signed as witness, not owner) or his knowledge of illegal activities, noting that victim statements before the magistrate contained no imputations against him and no substantive material (CCTV footage, rope evidence) was seized or documented. Bail was granted on a ₹25,000 personal recognizance bond with conditions against tampering with evidence or contacting victims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts