SHAHDAT KHAN CHOTE KHAN vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO GADGE NAGAR, AMRAVATI TQ AND DIST AMRAVATI — APPP/1389/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Next hearing: 29th April 2026.

Next hearing 29-Apr-2026

CNR: HCBM040137092026

Filing Number

APPP/4381/2026

Filing Date

20-Apr-2026

Registration No

APPP/1389/2026

Registration Date

20-Apr-2026

Bench Type

Single

Category

CRIMINAL ( 9 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHAHDAT KHAN CHOTE KHAN

    Adv. PANKAJ V. NAVLANI,PINAK M. VISHWARUPE,PINAK M. VISHWARUPE, ,PINAK M. VISHWARUPE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO GADGE NAGAR, AMRAVATI TQ AND DIST AMRAVATI

Case History

  1. 29-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. NerlikarView PDF

    Case Summary: APPP/1389/2026 - Shahdat Khan Chote Khan v. State of Maharashtra Shahdat Khan Chote Khan, an auto-rickshaw owner-driver, was arrested for charges including abetment, criminal intimidation, and Arms Act violations related to a violent clash between two transgender groups. The court found he played a limited role—merely providing transportation and allegedly uttering instigating words—with actual assaults committed by co-accused using weapons stored in his vehicle. The High Court granted bail on a ₹50,000 P.R. bond with two sureties, considering investigation completion and prolonged detention, while imposing restrictions including territorial limits, non-interference with witnesses, and mandatory trial attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Apr-2026

    —

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. APPP/1389/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: APPP/1389/2026 - Shahdat Khan Chote Khan v. State of Maharashtra Shahdat Khan Chote Khan, an auto-rickshaw owner-driver, was arrested for charges including abetment, criminal intimidation, and Arms Act violations related to a violent clash between two transgender groups. The court found he played a limited role—merely providing transportation and allegedly uttering instigating words—with actual assaults committed by co-accused using weapons stored in his vehicle. The High Court granted bail on a ₹50,000 P.R. bond with two sureties, considering investigation completion and prolonged detention, while imposing restrictions including territorial limits, non-interference with witnesses, and mandatory trial attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case