Dnyaneshwar Sachin Nilame vs State of Maharashtra Advocate - District Govt. Pleader — 116/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 18th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHLA010007122026
e-Filing Number
09-03-2026
Filing Number
271/2026
Filing Date
09-03-2026
Registration No
116/2026
Registration Date
10-03-2026
Court
District and Sessions Court , Latur
Judge
3-District Judge 2nd Latur
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
87
Police Station
Shivaji Nagar Police Station
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dnyaneshwar Sachin Nilame
Adv. Patil Ram N
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Advocate - District Govt. Pleader
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge 2nd Latur
Disposed
Arguments
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 10-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Dnyaneshwar Sachin Nilame v. State of Maharashtra (116/2026) The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Dnyaneshwar Sachin Nilame, who was accused of serious offences including rioting and criminal intimidation in connection with stone-pelting at a house and vehicles in Latur. The judge found the applicant was specifically named in the FIR, appeared to have actively participated in the incident, and could be required for custodial interrogation given the investigation's initial stage. The court rejected parity arguments based on bail granted to other co-accused who had undergone remand, emphasizing the gravity of the crime and investigation needs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Dnyaneshwar Sachin Nilame v. State of Maharashtra (116/2026) The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Dnyaneshwar Sachin Nilame, who was accused of serious offences including rioting and criminal intimidation in connection with stone-pelting at a house and vehicles in Latur. The judge found the applicant was specifically named in the FIR, appeared to have actively participated in the incident, and could be required for custodial interrogation given the investigation's initial stage. The court rejected parity arguments based on bail granted to other co-accused who had undergone remand, emphasizing the gravity of the crime and investigation needs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts