MANOJKUMAR OMPRAKASH MATHUR vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR — APEAL/416/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code (I.p.c) Section 420, 467, 471, 468, r/w, 120B. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.

Next hearing 25-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM010234902026

Filing Number

APEAL/9752/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

APEAL/416/2026

Registration Date

06-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

Bench Type

Single

Category

CRIMINAL APPEAL ( 58 )

Sub-Category

Against Conviction - By Convicted Person - on Bail ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code (I.p.c) Section 420, 467, 471, 468, r/w, 120B
Prevention of Corruption Act Section 13(2), r/w,13(1)(d)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANOJKUMAR OMPRAKASH MATHUR

    Adv. DURGESH JAISWAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

  2. 2.The State of Maharashtra

Case History

  1. 25-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 25-Jun-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

  3. 11-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF

    Case Summary: In Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, the court heard appellant Manojkumar Omprakash Mathur's counsel on 11 June 2026. The court issued notice to respondents returnable on 25 June 2026, with Respondent No.2 waiving service. The appellant was directed to serve Respondent No.1 by private service and file an affidavit of service. The case stands adjourned for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 11-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. APEAL/416/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: In Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, the court heard appellant Manojkumar Omprakash Mathur's counsel on 11 June 2026. The court issued notice to respondents returnable on 25 June 2026, with Respondent No.2 waiving service. The appellant was directed to serve Respondent No.1 by private service and file an affidavit of service. The case stands adjourned for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case