ASHOK BALASAHEB CHOLE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — 50/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 16th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln.
CNR: MHBI180001152026
e-Filing Number
16-02-2026
Filing Number
82/2026
Filing Date
16-02-2026
Registration No
50/2026
Registration Date
16-02-2026
Court
District and Additional Sessions Court Kaij
Judge
3-Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
Police Station
KAIJ POLICE STATION
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ASHOK BALASAHEB CHOLE
Adv. Ranjit Vishnu Khodse
Respondent(s)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Disposed
Order
Order
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Order |
| 09-03-2026 | Order |
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 04-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court rejected Ashok Babasaheb Chole's anticipatory bail application in a serious kidnapping and extortion case. The court found prima facie evidence against the applicant based on the victim's detailed statement, a co-accused's confession, and an eyewitness account showing the applicant drove the vehicle used in the abduction, armed assault with weapons, wrongful confinement, and extortion of ₹8,00,000. Given the grave nature of offences under BNS sections 140(2)-(3) (kidnapping threatening death/hurt, punishable with life imprisonment) and ongoing investigation requiring custodial interrogation for weapon recovery, the court determined bail was not warranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected Ashok Babasaheb Chole's anticipatory bail application in a serious kidnapping and extortion case. The court found prima facie evidence against the applicant based on the victim's detailed statement, a co-accused's confession, and an eyewitness account showing the applicant drove the vehicle used in the abduction, armed assault with weapons, wrongful confinement, and extortion of ₹8,00,000. Given the grave nature of offences under BNS sections 140(2)-(3) (kidnapping threatening death/hurt, punishable with life imprisonment) and ongoing investigation requiring custodial interrogation for weapon recovery, the court determined bail was not warranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts