SAGAR BABASAHEB CHITALKAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — BA/2269/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.

Next hearing 12-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM010254942026

Filing Number

BA/10557/2026

Filing Date

21-May-2026

Registration No

BA/2269/2026

Registration Date

22-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

Regular ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483
Indian Penal Code (I.p.c) Section 302,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAGAR BABASAHEB CHITALKAR

    Adv. Mrunal Avinash Bhide

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case History

  1. 12-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

    This is a common order in case BA/2269/2026 (Sagar Babasaheb Chitalkar v. The State of Maharashtra) issued by the Bombay High Court on 12 June 2026. The case could not be heard due to lack of time. The court directed removal of office objections and filing of affidavits-in-reply within one week, scheduled the matter for hearing on subsequent dates (15-19 June and 6-8 July 2026), and warned that matters without proper notice service or spare copies would be dismissed against unserved respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Jun-2026

    At 3.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  4. 21-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. BA/2269/2026

casestatus.in Summary

This is a common order in case BA/2269/2026 (Sagar Babasaheb Chitalkar v. The State of Maharashtra) issued by the Bombay High Court on 12 June 2026. The case could not be heard due to lack of time. The court directed removal of office objections and filing of affidavits-in-reply within one week, scheduled the matter for hearing on subsequent dates (15-19 June and 6-8 July 2026), and warned that matters without proper notice service or spare copies would be dismissed against unserved respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case