Vitthal Ramling Patil vs State of Maharashtra through P. I. Ajara Police Station Advocate - S. A. Teli — 9/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483 (1) (b). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 10th April 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHKO080001262026
e-Filing Number
02-03-2026
Filing Number
44/2026
Filing Date
02-Mar-2026
Registration No
9/2026
Registration Date
02-Mar-2026
Court
Add District Court , Gadhinglaj
Judge
1-District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge Gadhinglaj
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 26-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
277
Police Station
Ajara Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Vitthal Ramling Patil
Adv. Pratibha S Sardesai
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra through P. I. Ajara Police Station Advocate - S. A. Teli
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The court rejected Vitthal Ramling Patil's application to relax his bail condition prohibiting entry into Kitavade village. Though the accused argued the restriction harmed his family care duties, the court prioritized victim safety, noting she lost her husband, resides adjacent to the accused with two minor children, and faces reasonable threat of harassment that could compromise prosecution evidence before trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Apr-2026
Disposed
District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge Gadhinglaj
-
23-Mar-2026
Awaiting Summons
District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge Gadhinglaj
-
09-Mar-2026
Awaiting Summons
District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge Gadhinglaj
-
06-Mar-2026
First Order
District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge Gadhinglaj
-
04-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 9/2026
The court rejected Vitthal Ramling Patil's application to relax his bail condition prohibiting entry into Kitavade village. Though the accused argued the restriction harmed his family care duties, the court prioritized victim safety, noting she lost her husband, resides adjacent to the accused with two minor children, and faces reasonable threat of harassment that could compromise prosecution evidence before trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts