Haribhau Gangadhar Pawar vs The State of Maharashtra Through Assistant Police Inspector of Shanishinganapur Police Station Advocate - APP — 53/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--BAIL CANCELLED on 09th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHAH130001212026
e-Filing Number
25-02-2026
Filing Number
79/2026
Filing Date
25-Feb-2026
Registration No
53/2026
Registration Date
25-Feb-2026
Court
District and Sessions Court, Newasa.
Judge
3-Dist. Judge-2 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Newasa
Decision Date
09-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL CANCELLED
Last updated 14-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
23
Police Station
Shani Shingnapur Police Staton
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Haribhau Gangadhar Pawar
Adv. Shiledar S. A.
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State of Maharashtra Through Assistant Police Inspector of Shanishinganapur Police Station Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The court rejected the bail application of Haribhau Gangadhar Pawar, who is accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl on 14.02.2026. The judge held that despite the accused's claim of consensual relations, the significant age difference (40-year-old accused vs. minor victim) constitutes a heinous act of enticement and cannot be deemed consensual, and bail denial was warranted given their shared village residence and societal concerns. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Mar-2026
Disposed
Dist. Judge-2 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Newasa
-
07-Mar-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Dist. Judge-2 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Newasa
-
26-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 53/2026
The court rejected the bail application of Haribhau Gangadhar Pawar, who is accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl on 14.02.2026. The judge held that despite the accused's claim of consensual relations, the significant age difference (40-year-old accused vs. minor victim) constitutes a heinous act of enticement and cannot be deemed consensual, and bail denial was warranted given their shared village residence and societal concerns. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts