Akash Alias Babya Shriram Alias Baban Jadhav vs STATE OF MAHARASHATRA Advocate - Rakh A.D. — 128/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 13th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHBI010004812026
e-Filing Number
07-02-2026
Filing Number
231/2026
Filing Date
09-02-2026
Registration No
128/2026
Registration Date
09-02-2026
Court
District and Sessions Court , Beed
Judge
3-DIST.JUDGE-2 ADDL.SESSSIONS JUDGE,BEED.
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
292
Police Station
Georai Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Akash Alias Babya Shriram Alias Baban Jadhav
Adv. Abhijeet Shankar Galdhar
Respondent(s)
STATE OF MAHARASHATRA Advocate - Rakh A.D.
ABC
Adv. Dabhade A.R.
Hearing History
Judge: 3-DIST.JUDGE-2 ADDL.SESSSIONS JUDGE,BEED.
Disposed
Order
Order
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Order |
| 10-03-2026 | Order |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Akash Jadhav, accused of house trespass, assault, and sexual harassment of a 12-year-old child under POCSO and SC/ST Atrocities Act. The judge found that the victim's supplementary statement corroborated allegations against the applicant, his prolonged absence without surrendering or seeking earlier bail indicated guilt, and custodial interrogation was necessary for investigation and medical examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Akash Jadhav, accused of house trespass, assault, and sexual harassment of a 12-year-old child under POCSO and SC/ST Atrocities Act. The judge found that the victim's supplementary statement corroborated allegations against the applicant, his prolonged absence without surrendering or seeking earlier bail indicated guilt, and custodial interrogation was necessary for investigation and medical examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts