Aditya Amol Pagare vs State of Maharashtra — 36/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 16th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHAU170001662026
e-Filing Number
23-02-2026
Filing Number
94/2026
Filing Date
23-Feb-2026
Registration No
36/2026
Registration Date
23-Feb-2026
Court
Paithan, Dist and Sessions Court
Judge
1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 29-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
91
Police Station
BIDKIN
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Aditya Amol Pagare
Adv. Wavhal R.S.
-
2.Gaurav Kailas Pagare
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application of Aditya Amol Pagare and Gaurav Kailas Pagare, who were charged with armed robbery under BNS Section 309(6) r/w 3(5). The court found prima facie evidence of their involvement based on recovered stolen property (mobile handsets and cash) from their possession and their confessions, concluding that risks of witness tampering and commission of similar offences could not be ruled out. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
07-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
27-Feb-2026
Reply/Say
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
24-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 36/2026
The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application of Aditya Amol Pagare and Gaurav Kailas Pagare, who were charged with armed robbery under BNS Section 309(6) r/w 3(5). The court found prima facie evidence of their involvement based on recovered stolen property (mobile handsets and cash) from their possession and their confessions, concluding that risks of witness tampering and commission of similar offences could not be ruled out. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts