ANAND HARIBHAU MANE AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — APEAL/876/2025

Case under S.c., S.t. (Prevention Act) Section 14A(2), 3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(2)(va). Disposed: --DISPOSED OFF on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030467032025

e-Filing Number

19-11-2025

Filing Number

APEAL/12167/2025

Filing Date

19-Nov-2025

Registration No

APEAL/876/2025

Registration Date

19-Nov-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. Mantri

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. Mantri

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

S.c., S.t. (Prevention Act) Section 14A(2), 3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(2)(va)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115,117,126,189,191,351(23),190

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANAND HARIBHAU MANE AND OTHERS

    Adv. DOUND SUSMITA V

  2. 2.AKASH DEEPAK WAGHMARE

  3. 3.PRUTHWIRAJ SHRIRAM TARPE

  4. 4.SAHIL SANJIV BHAVARE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

    Adv. R/2 SERVED,ADV. AARTI T. GHADGE FOR R.NO. 2 (APPOINTED) 1123

  2. 2.VIKAS NAMDEO PANDE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. MantriView PDF

    Case Summary: APEAL/876/2025 Decision: The Aurangabad High Court allowed the pre-arrest bail appeals of all four appellants (Anand Haribhau Mane, Akash Deepak Waghmare, Pruthwiraj Shriram Tarpe, and Sahil Sanjiv Bhavare), granting them bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds of ₹50,000 each. Key Reasoning: The court found that: (1) most accused belong to Scheduled Castes/Tribes, making SC & ST Act provisions inapplicable; (2) specific allegations against accused Vinayak were vague with no clear evidence of his participation; (3) medical records showed only simple injuries to the victim's lip and cheek, contradicting claims of five lost teeth, thus Section 117(2) BNS (grievous injury) did not apply; and (4) investigation was complete with charge-sheet filed, eliminating need for custodial interrogation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Due Admission (Criminal)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade

  4. 02-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. KhobragadeView PDF

  5. 02-Apr-2026

    Due Admission (Criminal)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. KhobragadeView PDF

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    Due Admission (Criminal)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade

  8. 06-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. KhobragadeView PDF

  9. 06-Mar-2026

    Due Admission (Criminal)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade

  10. 13-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. KhobragadeView PDF

  11. 13-Feb-2026

    Due Orders Criminal

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade

  12. 06-Feb-2026

    Due Orders Criminal

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade

  13. 05-Feb-2026

    Due Admission (Criminal)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade

  14. 22-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. KhobragadeView PDF

  15. 22-Jan-2026

    Due Admission (Criminal)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade

  16. 08-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. KhobragadeView PDF

  17. 08-Jan-2026

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

  18. 11-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. GhodeswarView PDF

  19. 11-Dec-2025

    For Admission - Fresh - Criminal Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

  20. 20-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. GhodeswarView PDF

  21. 20-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 19-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. APEAL/876/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: APEAL/876/2025 Decision: The Aurangabad High Court allowed the pre-arrest bail appeals of all four appellants (Anand Haribhau Mane, Akash Deepak Waghmare, Pruthwiraj Shriram Tarpe, and Sahil Sanjiv Bhavare), granting them bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds of ₹50,000 each. Key Reasoning: The court found that: (1) most accused belong to Scheduled Castes/Tribes, making SC & ST Act provisions inapplicable; (2) specific allegations against accused Vinayak were vague with no clear evidence of his participation; (3) medical records showed only simple injuries to the victim's lip and cheek, contradicting claims of five lost teeth, thus Section 117(2) BNS (grievous injury) did not apply; and (4) investigation was complete with charge-sheet filed, eliminating need for custodial interrogation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case