Mohammad Sufiyan Jainuddin vs State of Maharashtra Through PSO PS Khadan Akola. Tq. Dist. Akola. Advocate - APP — 152/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 10th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln.
CNR: MHAK010009442026
e-Filing Number
02-03-2026
Filing Number
433/2026
Filing Date
02-Mar-2026
Registration No
152/2026
Registration Date
02-Mar-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Akola
Judge
2-District Judge -I Akola
Decision Date
10-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL GRANTED
Last updated 25-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Mohammad Sufiyan Jainuddin
Adv. DESHPANDE AJIT DIWAKAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra Through PSO PS (Police Station) Khadan Akola. Tq. Dist. Akola. Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The court granted pre-arrest bail to Mohammad Sufiyan Jainuddin in a child marriage case involving a 17-year-old victim. The judge found that the marriage was consummated consensually without force, alleged harassment constituted ordinary marital discord, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, outweighing prosecution concerns about serious offenses under child protection and marriage restraint laws. Bail was conditional on executing a ₹50,000 bond and cooperating with investigation including medical examination. 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
-
07-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge -I Akola
-
06-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge -I Akola
-
05-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge -I Akola
-
02-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 152/2026
The court granted pre-arrest bail to Mohammad Sufiyan Jainuddin in a child marriage case involving a 17-year-old victim. The judge found that the marriage was consummated consensually without force, alleged harassment constituted ordinary marital discord, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, outweighing prosecution concerns about serious offenses under child protection and marriage restraint laws. Bail was conditional on executing a ₹50,000 bond and cooperating with investigation including medical examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts