Mayur Sunil Apar vs State of Maharashtra Advocate - DGP — 43/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING on 11th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln.
CNR: MHBU010002922026
e-Filing Number
20-02-2026
Filing Number
113/2026
Filing Date
20-02-2026
Registration No
43/2026
Registration Date
20-02-2026
Court
District and Session Court Buldhana
Judge
8-District Judge-2 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING
FIR Details
FIR Number
40
Police Station
Dhad
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mayur Sunil Apar
Adv. Sawadatkar NP
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Advocate - DGP
Hearing History
Judge: 8-District Judge-2 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.
Disposed
Order
Reply/Say
Awaiting Notice
Order
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Order | |
| 05-03-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 04-03-2026 | Awaiting Notice | |
| 02-03-2026 | Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana, rejected the anticipatory bail application of Mayur Sunil Apar in a case involving extortion and assault. Although the applicant's name did not appear in the FIR, the court found CCTV footage confirming his presence at the crime scene, his contact with other accused persons, and determined he may be required for interrogation given the serious nature of organized crime allegations. The court balanced personal liberty against societal interest and declined to grant pre-arrest bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana, rejected the anticipatory bail application of Mayur Sunil Apar in a case involving extortion and assault. Although the applicant's name did not appear in the FIR, the court found CCTV footage confirming his presence at the crime scene, his contact with other accused persons, and determined he may be required for interrogation given the serious nature of organized crime allegations. The court balanced personal liberty against societal interest and declined to grant pre-arrest bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts