RAJENDRA SITARAM GOEL HARSHADA PARBHANE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. — ABA/827/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 02nd April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010153982026

Filing Number

ABA/6490/2026

Filing Date

27-Mar-2026

Registration No

ABA/827/2026

Registration Date

27-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice N. R. Borkar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice N. R. Borkar

Bench Type

Single

Category

BAIL ( 51 )

Sub-Category

Anticipatory ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 04-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 316(5),318(4),61(2),336(3),340(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJENDRA SITARAM GOEL HARSHADA PARBHANE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

  2. 2.ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING PUNE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. R. BorkarView PDF

    The Bombay High Court partially allowed Rajendra Sitaram Goel's anticipatory bail appeal, directing him to file a fresh application before the Sessions Court with full disclosure of his criminal antecedents. The court granted him 10 days' protection from arrest to enable him to file the revised application, addressing the lower court's rejection based on non-disclosure of his criminal history. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Fresh Admission (Anticipatory Bail Applications)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. R. Borkar

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. R. BorkarView PDF

  5. 01-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 27-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. ABA/827/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court partially allowed Rajendra Sitaram Goel's anticipatory bail appeal, directing him to file a fresh application before the Sessions Court with full disclosure of his criminal antecedents. The court granted him 10 days' protection from arrest to enable him to file the revised application, addressing the lower court's rejection based on non-disclosure of his criminal history. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case