Ajim Shah Altaf Shah Fakir vs State of Maharashtra — 101/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 07th April 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHDH010004182026
e-Filing Number
29-01-2026
Filing Number
194/2026
Filing Date
29-01-2026
Registration No
101/2026
Registration Date
29-01-2026
Court
District and Session Court ,Dhule
Judge
28-District Judge 5 and Addl. Sessions Judge Dhule
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL GRANTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
19
Police Station
Chalisgaon Road Police Station
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ajim Shah Altaf Shah Fakir
Adv. Waghmare B. B.
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 28-District Judge 5 and Addl. Sessions Judge Dhule
Disposed
Order
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 04-04-2026 | Order | |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, granted bail to accused Ajim Shah Altaf Shah Fakir in a case involving charges of rioting, criminal intimidation, and causing grievous hurt under BNS sections 109, 118, 189, 191, 351, and 352. The court found that despite the serious nature of the alleged assault on January 18, 2026, the accused had been in custody for over two and a half months, no recovery was pending, and significantly, both the informant and injured party filed affidavits expressing no objection to bail. The accused was released on a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in equal amount, with conditions to report weekly to police and not tamper with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, granted bail to accused Ajim Shah Altaf Shah Fakir in a case involving charges of rioting, criminal intimidation, and causing grievous hurt under BNS sections 109, 118, 189, 191, 351, and 352. The court found that despite the serious nature of the alleged assault on January 18, 2026, the accused had been in custody for over two and a half months, no recovery was pending, and significantly, both the informant and injured party filed affidavits expressing no objection to bail. The accused was released on a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in equal amount, with conditions to report weekly to police and not tamper with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts