Vinay Purushottam Bhange vs State of Maharashtra Advocate - A.P.P. — 398/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 23rd March 2026.

Cri.Bail Appln.

CNR: MHNG010019262026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

06-02-2026

Filing Number

883/2026

Filing Date

06-02-2026

Registration No

398/2026

Registration Date

06-02-2026

Court

District and Session Court , Nagpur

Judge

25-District Judge 6 And Add.Sessions Judge,Nagpur

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

FIR Details

FIR Number

61

Police Station

Rana Pratap Nagar

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

Vinay Purushottam Bhange

Adv. SONWANE SAMEER PURUSHOTTAM

Respondent(s)

State of Maharashtra Advocate - A.P.P.

Hearing History

Judge: 25-District Judge 6 And Add.Sessions Judge,Nagpur

23-03-2026

Disposed

17-03-2026

Order

12-03-2026

Order

10-03-2026

Hearing

05-03-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

The Additional Sessions Judge in Nagpur granted anticipatory bail to Vinay S/o Purushottam Bhange in a property dispute case, finding that the criminal charges arose from a civil land ownership dispute rather than genuine criminal conduct. The court determined that prima facie involvement was lacking, the accused had no criminal antecedents, and no custodial interrogation was necessary, subject to conditions including weekly reporting to the investigating officer until charge-sheet filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Judge in Nagpur granted anticipatory bail to Vinay S/o Purushottam Bhange in a property dispute case, finding that the criminal charges arose from a civil land ownership dispute rather than genuine criminal conduct. The court determined that prima facie involvement was lacking, the accused had no criminal antecedents, and no custodial interrogation was necessary, subject to conditions including weekly reporting to the investigating officer until charge-sheet filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Court , Nagpur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case