Sunny alias Lalit Ashok Vitthalkar vs Police Inspector Ambad Police Station, Nashik by Government of Maharashtra — 258/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 18th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHNS010010142026
e-Filing Number
21-02-2026
Filing Number
579/2026
Filing Date
21-02-2026
Registration No
258/2026
Registration Date
21-02-2026
Court
District and Sessions Court , Nashik
Judge
3-DISTRICT JUDGE-6 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
713
Police Station
AMBAD POLICE STATION
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sunny alias Lalit Ashok Vitthalkar
Adv. SHAIKH JAVED SHAFI
Respondent(s)
Police Inspector Ambad Police Station, Nashik by Government of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 3-DISTRICT JUDGE-6 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
Disposed
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 06-03-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 02-03-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 26-02-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Additional Sessions Judge at Nashik rejected the bail application of Sunny @ Lalit Ashok Vitthalkar, who was charged with serious offences including attempt to commit murder, extortion of ₹2 crores, and violations under the MCOC Act for allegedly threatening a property owner and demanding ransom. The court found that despite co-accused being released earlier under different circumstances, the applicant's case involved newly applicable MCOC Act provisions, a criminal history with five offences since 2016 (including murder), and posed a flight and witness-tampering risk. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Additional Sessions Judge at Nashik rejected the bail application of Sunny @ Lalit Ashok Vitthalkar, who was charged with serious offences including attempt to commit murder, extortion of ₹2 crores, and violations under the MCOC Act for allegedly threatening a property owner and demanding ransom. The court found that despite co-accused being released earlier under different circumstances, the applicant's case involved newly applicable MCOC Act provisions, a criminal history with five offences since 2016 (including murder), and posed a flight and witness-tampering risk. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts