AKSHAY SURYAKANT BHOSALE AND ANR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — APL/988/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010248962026
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
APL/10185/2026
Filing Date
11-05-2026
Registration No
APL/988/2026
Registration Date
12-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE
Bench Type
Single
Category
CRIMINAL ( 9 )
Sub-Category
QUASHING OF FIR C.R., CHARGE SHEET OR PROSECUTION ( 26 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AKSHAY SURYAKANT BHOSALE AND ANR
Adv. Prashant Prabhakar Raul
AJINKYA MOHAN GADRE
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE
AT 3.00 P.M.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-06-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
Orders
Case Summary: APL/988/2026 Outcome: The Bombay High Court allowed the criminal application and quashed the FIR (C.R. No. 108 of 2021) and chargesheet against the applicants. All criminal proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate were closed. Basis: The court found no material evidence showing the applicants engaged in any obscene acts or abetted the alleged crime. Their mere presence as customers at Madhuban Bar and Restaurant—where obscene dance performances allegedly occurred—was insufficient to attract charges under IPC Sections 188, 269, 294, 114 r/w 34, the Disaster Management Act 2005, or the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act 2016. The court held that prosecuting them constituted an abuse of legal process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: APL/988/2026 Outcome: The Bombay High Court allowed the criminal application and quashed the FIR (C.R. No. 108 of 2021) and chargesheet against the applicants. All criminal proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate were closed. Basis: The court found no material evidence showing the applicants engaged in any obscene acts or abetted the alleged crime. Their mere presence as customers at Madhuban Bar and Restaurant—where obscene dance performances allegedly occurred—was insufficient to attract charges under IPC Sections 188, 269, 294, 114 r/w 34, the Disaster Management Act 2005, or the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act 2016. The court held that prosecuting them constituted an abuse of legal process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts