Sagar Kushkumar Verulkar vs Prafull Raghunath Dane — 52/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483(3). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A.

CNR: MHBU110009012025

e-Filing Number

15-09-2025

Filing Number

399/2025

Filing Date

16-Sep-2025

Registration No

52/2025

Registration Date

16-Sep-2025

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Malkapur

Judge

1-District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 20-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sagar Kushkumar Verulkar

    Adv. SAGAR BHARAT SURYAVANSHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Prafull Raghunath Dane

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Order on Exhibit

    The Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur rejected the applicant's plea to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Prafulla Raghunath Dane, finding insufficient evidence of breach of bail conditions. The court held that the applicant lacked personal knowledge of the accused's non-attendance at the police station, the investigating officer took no corrective action despite being aware of conditions, and the investigation was completed without hindrance. Regarding court attendance, the court noted no evidence that charge-sheet information or summons was served on the accused, thus he could not be held liable for non-appearance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Order

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  8. 23-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  9. 17-Feb-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  10. 13-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  11. 07-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  12. 31-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  13. 20-Jan-2026

    Order on Exhibit

  14. 20-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  15. 09-Jan-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  16. 03-Jan-2026

    Compliance

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  17. 23-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  18. 15-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  19. 05-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  20. 21-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  21. 17-Nov-2025

    Order on Exhibit

  22. 17-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  23. 14-Nov-2025

    Order

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  24. 07-Nov-2025

    Reply/Say

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  25. 03-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  26. 15-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  27. 07-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  28. 30-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  29. 26-Sep-2025

    Reply/Say

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  30. 24-Sep-2025

    Notice_Unready

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge

  31. 20-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 16-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 52/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur rejected the applicant's plea to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Prafulla Raghunath Dane, finding insufficient evidence of breach of bail conditions. The court held that the applicant lacked personal knowledge of the accused's non-attendance at the police station, the investigating officer took no corrective action despite being aware of conditions, and the investigation was completed without hindrance. Regarding court attendance, the court noted no evidence that charge-sheet information or summons was served on the accused, thus he could not be held liable for non-appearance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case