Imran Khan Yasin Khan vs State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O. P.S. City Kotwali Akola. Advocate - APP — 126/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 10th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln.
CNR: MHAK010008032026
e-Filing Number
18-02-2026
Filing Number
347/2026
Filing Date
18-Feb-2026
Registration No
126/2026
Registration Date
18-Feb-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Akola
Judge
2-District Judge -I Akola
Decision Date
10-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 25-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Imran Khan Yasin Khan
Adv. Dildar Khan
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O. P.S. City Kotwali Akola. Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Summary The court rejected Imran Khan Yasin Khan's bail application in a serious sexual exploitation case. The Additional Sessions Judge found that the allegations against him were grave—he attempted to establish sexual relations with the victim as part of a coordinated criminal conspiracy with the main accused Raheman to sexually and economically exploit her. The court determined that his voluntary participation in this sinister plan, evidenced by accompanying Raheman to the victim's home, constituted clear culpability beyond mere demand and refusal, making bail inappropriate given the serious nature of charges and ongoing investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge -I Akola
-
09-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge -I Akola
-
06-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Judge -I Akola
-
05-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Judge -I Akola
-
26-Feb-2026
Reply/Say
District Judge -I Akola
-
23-Feb-2026
Reply/Say
District Judge -I Akola
-
18-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 126/2026
Summary The court rejected Imran Khan Yasin Khan's bail application in a serious sexual exploitation case. The Additional Sessions Judge found that the allegations against him were grave—he attempted to establish sexual relations with the victim as part of a coordinated criminal conspiracy with the main accused Raheman to sexually and economically exploit her. The court determined that his voluntary participation in this sinister plan, evidenced by accompanying Raheman to the victim's home, constituted clear culpability beyond mere demand and refusal, making bail inappropriate given the serious nature of charges and ongoing investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts