Rajendra Madan Maraskolhe vs State of Maharashtra Through PSO Rawanwadi Advocate - Chandwani M. S. — 93/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application

CNR: MHGO010004742026

e-Filing Number

07-03-2026

Filing Number

199/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

93/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Court , Gondia

Judge

35-District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL GRANTED

Last updated 21-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rajendra Madan Maraskolhe

    Adv. SHABANA SHAUKAT ANSARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra Through PSO Rawanwadi Advocate - Chandwani M. S.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary: The District Judge at Gondia granted bail to Rajendra, accused of assaulting an intellectually disabled victim under BNS Sections 75(2), 115, and POCSO Act Section 8. The court found that since most offences carry maximum 5-year sentences and the trial process would take considerable time, continued detention served no purpose. The court imposed strict conditions including a Rs.20,000 PR bond, restrictions on visiting the victim's village, non-interference with witnesses, and regular trial attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Reply/Say

    District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 93/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The District Judge at Gondia granted bail to Rajendra, accused of assaulting an intellectually disabled victim under BNS Sections 75(2), 115, and POCSO Act Section 8. The court found that since most offences carry maximum 5-year sentences and the trial process would take considerable time, continued detention served no purpose. The court imposed strict conditions including a Rs.20,000 PR bond, restrictions on visiting the victim's village, non-interference with witnesses, and regular trial attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case