Ravi Ganpat Jadhav vs The State of Maharashtra Advocate - APP — 209/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 25th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHJN010006822026
e-Filing Number
16-03-2026
Filing Number
392/2026
Filing Date
16-Mar-2026
Registration No
209/2026
Registration Date
16-Mar-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Jalna
Judge
14-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL GRANTED
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
101
Police Station
Mantha
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ravi Ganpat Jadhav
Adv. KALE SUNIL NAMDEO
-
2.Manojkumar Ashokchand Rathod
Adv. KALE SUNIL NAMDEO
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State of Maharashtra Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case 209/2026 Summary The Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to two police officers—Constable Ravi Ganpat Jadhav and Inspector Manojkumar Ashokchand Rathod—accused of demanding and accepting bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found that since the gratification amount was already seized and no further recovery was required, continued custody was unjustified, and stringent bail conditions could adequately address prosecution concerns about witness tampering. Both accused were released on personal recognizance bonds of Rs.25,000 each with sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
23-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
20-Mar-2026
Arguments
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 209/2026
Case 209/2026 Summary The Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to two police officers—Constable Ravi Ganpat Jadhav and Inspector Manojkumar Ashokchand Rathod—accused of demanding and accepting bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found that since the gratification amount was already seized and no further recovery was required, continued custody was unjustified, and stringent bail conditions could adequately address prosecution concerns about witness tampering. Both accused were released on personal recognizance bonds of Rs.25,000 each with sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts