Rushikesh Urf Chiman Haribhau Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra — 42/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 18th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHAU170001792026
e-Filing Number
02-03-2026
Filing Number
101/2026
Filing Date
02-03-2026
Registration No
42/2026
Registration Date
02-03-2026
Court
Paithan, Dist and Sessions Court
Judge
1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
639
Police Station
BIDKIN
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rushikesh Urf Chiman Haribhau Jadhav
Adv. Misal K.A.
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Disposed
Order
Order
Order
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | Order |
| 16-03-2026 | Order |
| 13-03-2026 | Order |
| 12-03-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Rushikesh Urf Chiman Haribhau Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (42/2026) The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application of Rushikesh Jadhav, who is charged with murder (Section 103(1) BNS) and related offences in connection with the death of Tanmay Chormare. The court found that the FIR itself disclosed the applicant's active participation in a mob assault where 30-35 persons attacked the victim with weapons, resulting in fatal injuries. The judge rejected arguments that the deadly blow was inflicted by a co-accused and denied parity-based bail claims, emphasizing the grave nature of the offence, severity of punishment, and risk of witness tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Rushikesh Urf Chiman Haribhau Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (42/2026) The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application of Rushikesh Jadhav, who is charged with murder (Section 103(1) BNS) and related offences in connection with the death of Tanmay Chormare. The court found that the FIR itself disclosed the applicant's active participation in a mob assault where 30-35 persons attacked the victim with weapons, resulting in fatal injuries. The judge rejected arguments that the deadly blow was inflicted by a co-accused and denied parity-based bail claims, emphasizing the grave nature of the offence, severity of punishment, and risk of witness 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