SHAAM VILAS SAKAT vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — ABA/1198/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010224962026

Filing Number

ABA/9377/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

ABA/1198/2026

Registration Date

30-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

Bench Type

Single

Category

BAIL ( 51 )

Sub-Category

Anticipatory ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109,115(2),3(5),352,351(2)(3)
Arms Act Section 4,25

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHAAM VILAS SAKAT

    Adv. Prashant Subhash Hagare

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

    Case Summary: ABA/1198/2026 The Bombay High Court rejected Shaam Vilas Sakat's anticipatory bail application in a case involving assault with a sickle causing grievous hurt to an informant at a hotel in Baramati, Pune. The court found a prima facie case against the applicant, who was named as Accused No. 1 and assigned an active assailant role, and additionally noted the applicant's three prior criminal convictions, which the court deemed sufficient grounds for bail denial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. ABA/1198/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: ABA/1198/2026 The Bombay High Court rejected Shaam Vilas Sakat's anticipatory bail application in a case involving assault with a sickle causing grievous hurt to an informant at a hotel in Baramati, Pune. The court found a prima facie case against the applicant, who was named as Accused No. 1 and assigned an active assailant role, and additionally noted the applicant's three prior criminal convictions, which the court deemed sufficient grounds for bail denial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case