DINESH PRAKASH MUDIRAJ vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — ABA/1230/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010230372026

Filing Number

ABA/9593/2026

Filing Date

04-May-2026

Registration No

ABA/1230/2026

Registration Date

04-May-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

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 143(3),3(5)
Prevention of Illicit Traffic Act (P.i.t.a) Section 3,4,5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DINESH PRAKASH MUDIRAJ

    Adv. Abdul Wahab Shaikh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

    Case Summary: ABA/1230/2026 The Bombay High Court rejected Dinesh Prakash Mudiraj's anticipatory bail application in a case involving organized human trafficking for prostitution at his spa center in Kashimira, Thane. While the applicant claimed ignorance of illegal activities, the court found a prima facie case based on victim statements, CDR evidence linking his involvement, and the fact that he retained majority payments while victims received only Rs. 1,500 per transaction. The court authorized custodial interrogation, considering the grave nature of the organized trafficking offence and exploitation of vulnerable women. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  4. 04-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. ABA/1230/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: ABA/1230/2026 The Bombay High Court rejected Dinesh Prakash Mudiraj's anticipatory bail application in a case involving organized human trafficking for prostitution at his spa center in Kashimira, Thane. While the applicant claimed ignorance of illegal activities, the court found a prima facie case based on victim statements, CDR evidence linking his involvement, and the fact that he retained majority payments while victims received only Rs. 1,500 per transaction. The court authorized custodial interrogation, considering the grave nature of the organized trafficking offence and exploitation of vulnerable women. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case