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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

25-02-2026

Filing Number

79/2026

Filing Date

25-02-2026

Registration No

53/2026

Registration Date

25-02-2026

Court

District and Sessions Court, Newasa.

Judge

3-Dist. Judge-2 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Newasa

Decision Date

09th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL CANCELLED

FIR Details

FIR Number

23

Police Station

Shani Shingnapur Police Staton

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

Haribhau Gangadhar Pawar

Adv. Shiledar S. A.

Respondent(s)

The State of Maharashtra Through Assistant Police Inspector of Shanishinganapur Police Station Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Dist. Judge-2 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Newasa

09-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

26-02-2026

Awaiting Notice

Final Orders / Judgements

09-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Court, Newasa. All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case