Deepak Kantilal Thakre vs State of Maharashtra — 112/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 12th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHDH010004792026
e-Filing Number
02-02-2026
Filing Number
213/2026
Filing Date
02-Feb-2026
Registration No
112/2026
Registration Date
02-Feb-2026
Court
District and Session Court ,Dhule
Judge
3-District Judge 3 and Additional Sessions Judge Dhule
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL GRANTED
Last updated 13-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
20
Police Station
Pimpalner
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Deepak Kantilal Thakre
Adv. Nilesh Dusane
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra
-
2.De Facto Informant
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The court granted bail to Dipak Kantilal Thakre, accused of rape and POCSO violations, finding that substantial investigation was complete and continued custody unnecessary. The decision was supported by the victim's no-objection to bail and the absence of evidence that the accused would abscond or tamper with evidence, applying the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge 3 and Additional Sessions Judge Dhule
-
09-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge 3 and Additional Sessions Judge Dhule
-
02-Mar-2026
Arguments
District Judge 3 and Additional Sessions Judge Dhule
-
16-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Judge 3 and Additional Sessions Judge Dhule
-
12-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Judge 3 and Additional Sessions Judge Dhule
-
09-Feb-2026
Reply/Say
District Judge 3 and Additional Sessions Judge Dhule
-
06-Feb-2026
Reply/Say
District Judge 3 and Additional Sessions Judge Dhule
-
02-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 112/2026
The court granted bail to Dipak Kantilal Thakre, accused of rape and POCSO violations, finding that substantial investigation was complete and continued custody unnecessary. The decision was supported by the victim's no-objection to bail and the absence of evidence that the accused would abscond or tamper with evidence, applying the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts