Sachin Govardhan Wahulkar vs The State of Maharashtra Advocate - APP — 165/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 17th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHJN010005462026
e-Filing Number
02-03-2026
Filing Number
305/2026
Filing Date
02-Mar-2026
Registration No
165/2026
Registration Date
02-Mar-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Jalna
Judge
14-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Decision Date
17-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL GRANTED
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
78
Police Station
Chandanzira
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sachin Govardhan Wahulkar
Adv. KULKARNI YOGESH SHESHRAO
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State of Maharashtra Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case 165/2026 Summary: The court granted bail to Sachin Govardhan Wahulkar, accused of accepting a ₹200 bribe while distributing welfare kits to construction workers under Section 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Additional Sessions Judge found that stringent bail conditions—including a ₹25,000 bond with surety, restrictions on tampering with evidence or witnesses, and disclosure of personal details—adequately addressed prosecution concerns about witness intimidation and evidence tampering, making detention unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Arguments
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Arguments
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
02-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 165/2026
Case 165/2026 Summary: The court granted bail to Sachin Govardhan Wahulkar, accused of accepting a ₹200 bribe while distributing welfare kits to construction workers under Section 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Additional Sessions Judge found that stringent bail conditions—including a ₹25,000 bond with surety, restrictions on tampering with evidence or witnesses, and disclosure of personal details—adequately addressed prosecution concerns about witness intimidation and evidence tampering, making detention unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts