Mangesh Subhash Shinde vs State Of Maharshtra — 247/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 23rd March 2026.

Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application

CNR: MHKO010010492026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

12-03-2026

Filing Number

466/2026

Filing Date

12-03-2026

Registration No

247/2026

Registration Date

12-03-2026

Court

District and Sessions Court , Kolhapur

Judge

7-District Judge-2 Kolhapur

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL REFUSED

FIR Details

FIR Number

56

Police Station

Police Station Gandhinagar

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 118(2),190,191(2),191(3)

Petitioner(s)

Mangesh Subhash Shinde

Adv. SHINDE SAGAR RAMESH

Respondent(s)

State Of Maharshtra

Hearing History

Judge: 7-District Judge-2 Kolhapur

23-03-2026

Disposed

20-03-2026

Order

18-03-2026

Order

16-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

12-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

Summary of Case 247/2026 Mangesh Subhash Shinde sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged group assault under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 118(2), 190, 191(2), and 191(3). The court rejected the application, finding prima facie evidence of the applicant's presence at the incident scene and his involvement in threatening the victim, despite no specific allegation that he directly inflicted injuries. The judge deemed custodial interrogation necessary for seizing evidence (clothes, vehicle) and noted the offences were cognizable and non-bailable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 247/2026 Mangesh Subhash Shinde sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged group assault under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 118(2), 190, 191(2), and 191(3). The court rejected the application, finding prima facie evidence of the applicant's presence at the incident scene and his involvement in threatening the victim, despite no specific allegation that he directly inflicted injuries. The judge deemed custodial interrogation necessary for seizing evidence (clothes, vehicle) and noted the offences were cognizable and non-bailable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Sessions Court , Kolhapur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case