OMPRAKASH GOPALKRISHNA KHANDELWAL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — WP/625/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030188112026

e-Filing Number

07-05-2026

Filing Number

WP/4793/2026

Filing Date

07-May-2026

Registration No

WP/625/2026

Registration Date

07-May-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

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.OMPRAKASH GOPALKRISHNA KHANDELWAL

    Adv. Deshpande Priyanka Ashok

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Mehroz K. PathanView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/625/2026 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of Omprakash Gopalkrishna Khandelwal's criminal writ petition by accepting his undertaking to deposit Rs.10,000 as costs within 15 days and to appear before the trial court for recording his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court did not adjudicate the merits of the petition or the grounds challenging the necessity of the accused's personal presence for recording the statement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    For Admission - Fresh - Criminal Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Mehroz K. Pathan

  4. 07-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/625/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/625/2026 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of Omprakash Gopalkrishna Khandelwal's criminal writ petition by accepting his undertaking to deposit Rs.10,000 as costs within 15 days and to appear before the trial court for recording his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court did not adjudicate the merits of the petition or the grounds challenging the necessity of the accused's personal presence for recording the statement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case