PRATAP CHANDRSHEN PAWAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — ABA/941/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

Next hearing 11-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM030213462026

Filing Number

ABA/5851/2026

Filing Date

08-Jun-2026

Registration No

ABA/941/2026

Registration Date

08-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Indian Penal Code (I.p.c) Section 302,323,,149,504
Maharashtra Police Act Section 135

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRATAP CHANDRSHEN PAWAR

    Adv. M L Dharashive

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case History

  1. 11-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 11-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. JoshiView PDF

    Case Summary: ABA 941/2026 Pratap Chandrshen Pawar's anticipatory bail application was dismissed. The High Court rejected his pre-arrest bail plea in connection with a 2021 fatal assault case (Crime No. 0014/2021, Ahmedpur Police Station, Latur), noting that he had been absconding for over four years. Despite the applicant's arguments that co-accused were acquitted and he was employed, the Court found the offences serious and determined no investigation had been conducted against him, making him unsuitable for liberty protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Jun-2026

    Anticipatory Bail - First Time

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

  4. 08-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. ABA/941/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: ABA 941/2026 Pratap Chandrshen Pawar's anticipatory bail application was dismissed. The High Court rejected his pre-arrest bail plea in connection with a 2021 fatal assault case (Crime No. 0014/2021, Ahmedpur Police Station, Latur), noting that he had been absconding for over four years. Despite the applicant's arguments that co-accused were acquitted and he was employed, the Court found the offences serious and determined no investigation had been conducted against him, making him unsuitable for liberty protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case