DINESH RAMESH SHETTY vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — ABA/945/2026
Case under Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc) Section 438. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 15th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010177392026
Filing Number
ABA/7439/2026
Filing Date
08-04-2026
Registration No
ABA/945/2026
Registration Date
08-04-2026
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
15th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DINESH RAMESH SHETTY
Adv. TEJAS HILAGE
Respondent(s)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. N. LADDHA
FRESH ADMISSION (ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATIONS)
FRESH ADMISSION (ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATIONS)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | FRESH ADMISSION (ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATIONS) |
| 15-04-2026 | FRESH ADMISSION (ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATIONS) |
Orders
Summary The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to Dinesh Ramesh Shetty in a case involving charges under Section 143(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. The court found that allegations of coercion and exploitation rested primarily on the victim's statement, which indicated she was a consenting adult who voluntarily engaged in prostitution, with no prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in recruitment, coercion, or exploitation. Since investigation concluded and chargesheet was filed, no custodial interrogation was necessary, and prosecution concerns about evidence tampering were deemed speculative and addressable through bail conditions. The applicant was released on a PR Bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions prohibiting witness influence and victim contact. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to Dinesh Ramesh Shetty in a case involving charges under Section 143(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. The court found that allegations of coercion and exploitation rested primarily on the victim's statement, which indicated she was a consenting adult who voluntarily engaged in prostitution, with no prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in recruitment, coercion, or exploitation. Since investigation concluded and chargesheet was filed, no custodial interrogation was necessary, and prosecution concerns about evidence tampering were deemed speculative and addressable through bail conditions. The applicant was released on a PR Bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions prohibiting witness influence and victim contact. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts