Shri Shankarlal Gopilala Choudhari vs State of Maharashtra Through Jaysingpur Police Station — 43/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 10th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHKO060001172026
e-Filing Number
05-03-2026
Filing Number
81/2026
Filing Date
05-03-2026
Registration No
43/2026
Registration Date
06-03-2026
Court
Addl. District Court , Jaysingpur
Judge
1-District Judge 1 and ASJ Jaysingpur.
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL GRANTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shri Shankarlal Gopilala Choudhari
Adv. PATIL SHANTGONDA BABGONDA
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Through Jaysingpur Police Station
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge 1 and ASJ Jaysingpur.
Disposed
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 07-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 06-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application of Shankarlal Gopilal Choudhari, accused of illegal possession and sale of explosives under BNS Section 288 and the Explosive Substances Act. The judge found that the accused holds a valid license for explosive possession for his stone-blasting business, the evidence (muddamal) was already recovered, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary given his age, permanent residence, and clean antecedents. The accused was granted bail on execution of personal and surety bonds of Rs. 20,000 each with conditions to cooperate in the investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application of Shankarlal Gopilal Choudhari, accused of illegal possession and sale of explosives under BNS Section 288 and the Explosive Substances Act. The judge found that the accused holds a valid license for explosive possession for his stone-blasting business, the evidence (muddamal) was already recovered, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary given his age, permanent residence, and clean antecedents. The accused was granted bail on execution of personal and surety bonds of Rs. 20,000 each with conditions to cooperate in the investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts