STATE OF MAHARASHATRA vs Sanajy Narayan Hange — 38/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 14,34. Status: Appearance. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.

Appearance Next hearing 02-Jun-2026 this date has passed

Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)

CNR: MHBI010005672026

e-Filing Number

16-02-2026

Filing Number

273/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

38/2026

Registration Date

17-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Court , Beed

Judge

12-Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

Last updated 25-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

544

Police Station

Shivajinagar P.S. Beed.

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 14,34
Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7,13
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),316(5),338,336(3),340(2),198,199,316(2),61,351(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHATRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sanajy Narayan Hange

  2. 2.Trambak Bhanudas Pingale

  3. 3.Shaikh Ajahar Shaikh Babu

  4. 4.Shahadev Mahadev Nannavre HC ABA NO. 2243/2025 Prov. Bail Granted Suppl Chargesheet will filed after Final Bail

  5. 5.Subhash Guruling Pisure HC ABA NO. 2256/2025 Prov. Bail Granted Suppl Chargesheet will filed after Final Bail

  6. 6.Pravin Bhagwanrao Rakh HC ABA NO. 2305/2025 Prov. Bail Granted Suppl Chargesheet will filed after Final Bail

  7. 7.Migresh Dinkarrao Narwadkar HC ABA NO. 61/2026 Prov. Bail Granted Suppl Chargesheet will filed after Final Bail

  8. 8.Pandurang Tatyasaheb Hagar Patil BNSS 335

  9. 9.Dipak Achyutrao Raut BNSS 335

  10. 10.Avinash Nanabhau Chavhan BNSS 335

Case History

  1. 02-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 19-May-2026

    Appearance

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Appearance

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  4. 21-Apr-2026

    Appearance

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  5. 08-Apr-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  6. 08-Apr-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  7. 08-Apr-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    BAIL DENIED The court rejected the successive bail application of accused Shaikh Azhar Shaikh Babu in a case involving alleged preparation of fake arbitration awards that caused ₹73 crore loss to the Maharashtra government. The Special Judge found prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the conspiracy, including incriminating communications with co-accused and his critical role in data entry of fraudulent awards, and determined that granting bail posed risks of evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 08-Apr-2026

    Appearance

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  9. 07-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  10. 06-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  11. 02-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  12. 31-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  13. 23-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  14. 20-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  15. 16-Mar-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  16. 12-Mar-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  17. 09-Mar-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  18. 02-Mar-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

    Dist.judge-1 Addl.sessions Judge, Beed.

  19. 17-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 38/2026

casestatus.in Summary

BAIL DENIED The court rejected the successive bail application of accused Shaikh Azhar Shaikh Babu in a case involving alleged preparation of fake arbitration awards that caused ₹73 crore loss to the Maharashtra government. The Special Judge found prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the conspiracy, including incriminating communications with co-accused and his critical role in data entry of fraudulent awards, and determined that granting bail posed risks of evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case