SANTOSH S/O GAURI NAKKE (IN JAIL) vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS KAPIL NAGAR, DIST. NAGPUR — BA/249/2026
Case under Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc) Section 439. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 15th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM040065782026
Next Hearing
25th February 2026
Filing Number
BA/1918/2026
Filing Date
21-02-2026
Registration No
BA/249/2026
Registration Date
23-02-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. NERLIKAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. NERLIKAR
Bench Type
Single
Category
CRIMINAL ( 9 )
Sub-Category
BAIL/INTERIM BAIL ( 5 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Decision Date
15th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SANTOSH S/O GAURI NAKKE (IN JAIL)
Adv. CHAITANYA B. BARVE,SHUBHAM RAKSHIT,SHUBHAM RAKSHIT, SHUBHAM RAKSHIT
Respondent(s)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS (Police Station) KAPIL NAGAR, DIST. NAGPUR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. NERLIKAR
BA (AFTER NOTICE)
BA (AFTER NOTICE)
BA (FRESH)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-02-2026 | |
| 02-04-2026 | BA (AFTER NOTICE) |
| 18-03-2026 | BA (AFTER NOTICE) |
| 11-03-2026 | BA (FRESH) |
Orders
SUMMARY The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) rejected Santosh's bail application in a murder case. Santosh was charged with conspiracy and murder under IPC Sections 203, 302, 120-B and MCOCA provisions. The court found sufficient evidence of his active involvement: witness testimony placing him at the conspiracy site hours before the murder, multiple phone calls with the main assailant on the incident day, and his alleged role instigating the killer. Considering his serious criminal history (eight registered crimes) and greater culpability than the gang leader (whose bail was rejected and upheld by Supreme Court), the court denied bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) rejected Santosh's bail application in a murder case. Santosh was charged with conspiracy and murder under IPC Sections 203, 302, 120-B and MCOCA provisions. The court found sufficient evidence of his active involvement: witness testimony placing him at the conspiracy site hours before the murder, multiple phone calls with the main assailant on the incident day, and his alleged role instigating the killer. Considering his serious criminal history (eight registered crimes) and greater culpability than the gang leader (whose bail was rejected and upheld by Supreme Court), the court denied bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts