Pawan Chandrakant Pawar vs State Ambad Police stn Nashik — 245/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 10th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHNS010009432026
e-Filing Number
18-02-2026
Filing Number
555/2026
Filing Date
18-02-2026
Registration No
245/2026
Registration Date
18-02-2026
Court
District and Sessions Court , Nashik
Judge
4-DISTRICT JUDGE-7 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL GRANTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
753
Police Station
AMBAD POLICE STATION
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pawan Chandrakant Pawar
Adv. chetan Deshmukh
Respondent(s)
State Ambad Police stn Nashik
Hearing History
Judge: 4-DISTRICT JUDGE-7 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
Disposed
Arguments
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 05-03-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 02-03-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 27-02-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court granted anticipatory bail to applicant Pawan Chandrakant Pawar in a case involving allegations of extortion, intimidation, and forged documents related to a Power of Attorney over an elderly woman's property. The court found that the complainant had suppressed crucial documents (the Power of Attorney and a Memorandum of Understanding showing a 60-40% profit-sharing arrangement) and had already received ₹21 lakhs from the applicant, concluding the complaint appeared motivated by her desire to avoid repaying borrowed money rather than addressing genuine criminal conduct. Bail was granted on condition of furnishing ₹25,000 surety and attending weekly police investigation sessions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court granted anticipatory bail to applicant Pawan Chandrakant Pawar in a case involving allegations of extortion, intimidation, and forged documents related to a Power of Attorney over an elderly woman's property. The court found that the complainant had suppressed crucial documents (the Power of Attorney and a Memorandum of Understanding showing a 60-40% profit-sharing arrangement) and had already received ₹21 lakhs from the applicant, concluding the complaint appeared motivated by her desire to avoid repaying borrowed money rather than addressing genuine criminal conduct. Bail was granted on condition of furnishing ₹25,000 surety and attending weekly police investigation sessions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts