DILIP SAHADEO KENDRE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — 66/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 16th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln.
CNR: MHBI180001502026
e-Filing Number
04-03-2026
Filing Number
101/2026
Filing Date
05-03-2026
Registration No
66/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
District and Additional Sessions Court Kaij
Judge
1-District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kaij
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL REFUSED
FIR Details
FIR Number
59
Police Station
KAIJ POLICE STATION
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DILIP SAHADEO KENDRE
Adv. ETAPE PRADEEP DEVIDAS
Respondent(s)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kaij
Disposed
Arguments
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 10-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 09-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 06-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The court rejected Dilip Sahadeo Kendre's anticipatory bail application in a case involving arson charges under BNS 2023 sections 324(4), 324(5), and 326(g). The applicant was named as a suspicious person in a supplementary FIR statement regarding a plumbing shop fire causing Rs. 25-30 lakhs loss, though his name did not appear in the original FIR. The court held that restraining police from arresting the applicant would hamper ongoing investigation, as police had reasonable grounds to investigate the applicant's role in the alleged crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected Dilip Sahadeo Kendre's anticipatory bail application in a case involving arson charges under BNS 2023 sections 324(4), 324(5), and 326(g). The applicant was named as a suspicious person in a supplementary FIR statement regarding a plumbing shop fire causing Rs. 25-30 lakhs loss, though his name did not appear in the original FIR. The court held that restraining police from arresting the applicant would hamper ongoing investigation, as police had reasonable grounds to investigate the applicant's role in the alleged crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts