KARAN RAJU NARSI AND ANR. vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. — APEAL/431/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code (I.p.c) Section 307 r/w, 34. Next hearing: 23rd July 2026.

Next hearing 23-Jul-2026

CNR: HCBM010250402026

Filing Number

APEAL/10275/2026

Filing Date

13-May-2026

Registration No

APEAL/431/2026

Registration Date

14-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 - in Jail - Through Jail ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code (I.p.c) Section 307 r/w, 34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KARAN RAJU NARSI AND ANR.

    Adv. Sonal V Parab

  2. 2.RAJU LIMBAADRI NARSI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

  2. 2.SARFARAZ USMAN SAIFFI

Case History

  1. 23-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 23-Jul-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

  3. 12-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF

    Case Summary: Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2026 The Bombay High Court heard appellants Karan Raju Narsi and Anr. in their appeal against the State of Maharashtra. The court issued notice to respondents for final disposal on 23rd July 2026, with the State waiving notice requirement. The appellants were permitted to serve Respondent No. 2 by private service and file an affidavit accordingly. The matter stands adjourned for substantive hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 12-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 13-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. APEAL/431/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2026 The Bombay High Court heard appellants Karan Raju Narsi and Anr. in their appeal against the State of Maharashtra. The court issued notice to respondents for final disposal on 23rd July 2026, with the State waiving notice requirement. The appellants were permitted to serve Respondent No. 2 by private service and file an affidavit accordingly. The matter stands adjourned for substantive hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case