SANDEEP NANASAHEB PAWAR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — ABA/644/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 04th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030152842026
Filing Number
ABA/3831/2026
Filing Date
16-04-2026
Registration No
ABA/644/2026
Registration Date
16-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MEHROZ K. PATHAN
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MEHROZ K. PATHAN
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Decision Date
04th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SANDEEP NANASAHEB PAWAR AND OTHERS
Adv. NAGARGOJE ANKUSH NIVRUTTI
SANGRAM PRAKASH PAWAR
MANGESH BABASAHEB BHOSALE
PRAKASH KISANRAO PAWAR
RITESH RAMESH PAWAR
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Adv. P.P. FOR R/1 AND R/2 1123
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MEHROZ K. PATHAN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - FIRST TIME
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | ANTICIPATORY BAIL - FIRST TIME |
| 04-05-2026 |
Orders
Case Summary: ABA/644/2026 The High Court at Aurangabad granted anticipatory bail to five applicants (Sandeep Nanasaheb Pawar, Sangram Prakash Pawar, Mangesh Babasaheb Bhosale, Prakash Kisanrao Pawar, and Ritesh Ramesh Pawar) in a group assault case involving rival factions. While the FIR specifically attributed particular acts to other co-accused, the applicants were charged only with general participation in an unlawful assembly. The court found that the applicants—with no criminal antecedents and merely present at a hospital—were likely falsely implicated for vengeful purposes, and granted bail on conditions including Rs. 50,000 bonds, police reporting, and restrictions on entering the crime scene's police jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: ABA/644/2026 The High Court at Aurangabad granted anticipatory bail to five applicants (Sandeep Nanasaheb Pawar, Sangram Prakash Pawar, Mangesh Babasaheb Bhosale, Prakash Kisanrao Pawar, and Ritesh Ramesh Pawar) in a group assault case involving rival factions. While the FIR specifically attributed particular acts to other co-accused, the applicants were charged only with general participation in an unlawful assembly. The court found that the applicants—with no criminal antecedents and merely present at a hospital—were likely falsely implicated for vengeful purposes, and granted bail on conditions including Rs. 50,000 bonds, police reporting, and restrictions on entering the crime scene's police jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts