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
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
Petitioner(s)
Mangesh Subhash Shinde
Adv. SHINDE SAGAR RAMESH
Respondent(s)
State Of Maharshtra
Hearing History
Judge: 7-District Judge-2 Kolhapur
Disposed
Order
Order
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts