SHUBHAM CHANDRAKANT JADHAV vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — BA/564/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.

Next hearing 24-Apr-2026

CNR: HCBM030115332026

Filing Number

BA/2911/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

BA/564/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Shailesh P. Brahme

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Shailesh P. Brahme

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483
N.d.p.s.a. (Act. 1985) Section 20(b),22(B),8(c)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHUBHAM CHANDRAKANT JADHAV

    Adv. Shermale K. N.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Adv. P.P. FOR R/SOLE 1123

Case History

  1. 24-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Shailesh P. Brahme

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Regular Bail- Fresh

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Shailesh P. Brahme

  4. 26-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Shailesh P. BrahmeView PDF

    The High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) adjourned eight bail applications (Nos. 564, 568, 569, 571, 572, 573, 576, and 577 of 2026) with notice issued to respondents returnable on 10.04.2026. The court directed police papers to be called from concerned police stations and clarified that service of notice must be ensured on informants impleaded as respondents, with liberty granted to parties to file relevant documents on record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 26-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. BA/564/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) adjourned eight bail applications (Nos. 564, 568, 569, 571, 572, 573, 576, and 577 of 2026) with notice issued to respondents returnable on 10.04.2026. The court directed police papers to be called from concerned police stations and clarified that service of notice must be ensured on informants impleaded as respondents, with liberty granted to parties to file relevant documents on record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case