Rajeshwari Raju Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra Advocate - Kolhe B. G. — 60/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 09th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHAH070001952026
e-Filing Number
18-02-2026
Filing Number
109/2026
Filing Date
18-Feb-2026
Registration No
60/2026
Registration Date
18-Feb-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Sangamner
Judge
2-District Judge 1 and Addl. Session Judge, Sangamner
Decision Date
09-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL REFUSED
Last updated 14-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
144
Police Station
Akole Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Rajeshwari Raju Gaikwad
Adv. Dhumal K. D.
-
2.Raju Sayaji Gaikwad
Adv. Dhumal K. D.
Respondent(s)
-
1.State Of Maharashtra Advocate - Kolhe B. G.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Court Decision Summary The court rejected the bail petition of accused Rajeshwari Raju Gayakwad and Raju Sayaji Gayakwad in a case involving abetment to suicide (IPC Sections 108, 351(2), (3), and 305). The court found that the accused absconded for 10-17 days after the FIR was filed on March 17, 2025, and that investigation remains incomplete. The court determined that granting bail would likely hamper the ongoing investigation and create risk of witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge 1 and Addl. Session Judge, Sangamner
-
05-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge 1 and Addl. Session Judge, Sangamner
-
27-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Judge 1 and Addl. Session Judge, Sangamner
-
23-Feb-2026
Report
District Judge 2 and Additional Sessions Judge,Sangamner
-
20-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 60/2026
Court Decision Summary The court rejected the bail petition of accused Rajeshwari Raju Gayakwad and Raju Sayaji Gayakwad in a case involving abetment to suicide (IPC Sections 108, 351(2), (3), and 305). The court found that the accused absconded for 10-17 days after the FIR was filed on March 17, 2025, and that investigation remains incomplete. The court determined that granting bail would likely hamper the ongoing investigation and create risk of witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts