SANI @ NANA BALASO PARDESHI vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — ABA/1151/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 10th June 2026.

CNR: HCBM010216012026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

29th April 2026

Filing Number

ABA/9007/2026

Filing Date

27-04-2026

Registration No

ABA/1151/2026

Registration Date

27-04-2026

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Bench Type

Single

Category

BAIL ( 51 )

Sub-Category

Anticipatory ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

10th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109,140(1),118(2),189(2),189(4),190,191(2),191(3),61(2)
Police Act (Maharashtra) Section 135

Petitioner(s)

SANI @ NANA BALASO PARDESHI

Adv. Ghanasham Jadhav

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE

29-04-2026
10-06-2026

FOR ADMISSION

04-05-2026

FRESH ADMISSION (ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATIONS)

Orders

10-06-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Case Summary: ABA/1151/2026 The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to Sani @ Nana Balaso Pardeshi in Crime No. 213 of 2024 (assault with intent to kill), finding that his name was not mentioned in the original FIR and was added 3-4 days later. The court applied the principle of parity, noting that two co-accused with similar allegations had already been released on anticipatory bail, determining custodial interrogation unnecessary. The applicant was released on a PR bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to police attendance as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: ABA/1151/2026 The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to Sani @ Nana Balaso Pardeshi in Crime No. 213 of 2024 (assault with intent to kill), finding that his name was not mentioned in the original FIR and was added 3-4 days later. The court applied the principle of parity, noting that two co-accused with similar allegations had already been released on anticipatory bail, determining custodial interrogation unnecessary. The applicant was released on a PR bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to police attendance as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case