SHUBHAM DATTATRAY HARIHAR vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — BA/1362/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Status: For Admission (Bail Applications). Next hearing: 09th June 2026.

For Admission (Bail Applications) Next hearing 09-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CNR: HCBM010143162026

Filing Number

BA/6047/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

BA/1362/2026

Registration Date

24-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Shivkumar Dige

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Shivkumar Dige

Bench Type

Single

Category

BAIL ( 51 )

Sub-Category

Regular ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64,78,308(2),308(3),351(2),3(5)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 Section 4,6,8,12

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHUBHAM DATTATRAY HARIHAR

    Adv. Vaibhav Chandanshive

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case History

  1. 09-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    For Admission (Bail Applications)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Shivkumar Dige

  3. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Shivkumar DigeView PDF

    The bail application of Shubham Dattatray Harihar was not decided on merits. Instead, the High Court of Bombay adjourned the matter to 9th June 2026 after hearing counsel for both parties. The Investigating Officer was directed to inform the second respondent about the pending application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 23-Apr-2026

    Fresh Admission (Bail Applications)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Shivkumar Dige

  5. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Shivkumar DigeView PDF

  6. 01-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. BA/1362/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The bail application of Shubham Dattatray Harihar was not decided on merits. Instead, the High Court of Bombay adjourned the matter to 9th June 2026 after hearing counsel for both parties. The Investigating Officer was directed to inform the second respondent about the pending application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case