Bhagvat Ramdas Khairnar vs State of Maharashtra — 25/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 17th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHAU040002212026
e-Filing Number
12-03-2026
Filing Number
68/2026
Filing Date
12-03-2026
Registration No
25/2026
Registration Date
12-03-2026
Court
District and Additional Sessions Court, Vaijapur
Judge
3-DIST. JUDGE-1 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VAIJAPUR
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
FIR Details
FIR Number
164
Police Station
VAIJAPUR
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhagvat Ramdas Khairnar
Adv. Ponde P.A.
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 3-DIST. JUDGE-1 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VAIJAPUR
Disposed
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
First Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 12-03-2026 | First Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Bhagvat Ramdas Khairnar vs. State of Maharashtra (25/2026) The court granted pre-arrest bail to applicant Bhagvat Ramdas Khairnar in a Prevention of Corruption Act case where he was alleged to have received a ₹7,000 bribe via phone-pay on behalf of the main accused (Sub-Divisional Irrigation Officer). The court found his role minimal—merely accepting funds—and noted he was not named in the FIR despite his mobile number being mentioned. Considering the 7-year maximum punishment, his permanent local residence, and lack of clear arrest intention by investigators, the court ruled custodial interrogation unnecessary and imposed stringent bail conditions including ₹50,000 bond, bi-weekly police station reporting, and a prohibition on evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Bhagvat Ramdas Khairnar vs. State of Maharashtra (25/2026) The court granted pre-arrest bail to applicant Bhagvat Ramdas Khairnar in a Prevention of Corruption Act case where he was alleged to have received a ₹7,000 bribe via phone-pay on behalf of the main accused (Sub-Divisional Irrigation Officer). The court found his role minimal—merely accepting funds—and noted he was not named in the FIR despite his mobile number being mentioned. Considering the 7-year maximum punishment, his permanent local residence, and lack of clear arrest intention by investigators, the court ruled custodial interrogation unnecessary and imposed stringent bail conditions including ₹50,000 bond, bi-weekly police station reporting, and a prohibition on evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts