Vishal Chandrakant Pawar vs Ambad Police Station, Nashik — 295/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 10th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHNS010012552026
e-Filing Number
02-03-2026
Filing Number
657/2026
Filing Date
02-Mar-2026
Registration No
295/2026
Registration Date
02-Mar-2026
Court
District and Sessions Court , Nashik
Judge
4-District Judge-7 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik
Decision Date
10-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL GRANTED
Last updated 29-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
753
Police Station
AMBAD POLICE STATION
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Vishal Chandrakant Pawar
Adv. chetan Deshmukh
Respondent(s)
-
1.Ambad Police Station, Nashik
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The court granted bail to Vishal Chandrakant Pawar, finding the complainant had suppressed crucial documents including a Memorandum of Understanding and Power of Attorney showing a consensual business arrangement to challenge her deceased husband's will in exchange for a 60-40% benefit split. The court noted the two-year delay in filing the FIR, lack of actual physical injury despite allegations of grievous hurt, and that Rs. 21 lakhs were received by the complainant from the applicant, suggesting the complaint was filed to avoid repaying this amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge-7 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik
-
09-Mar-2026
Arguments
District Judge-7 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik
-
02-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 295/2026
The court granted bail to Vishal Chandrakant Pawar, finding the complainant had suppressed crucial documents including a Memorandum of Understanding and Power of Attorney showing a consensual business arrangement to challenge her deceased husband's will in exchange for a 60-40% benefit split. The court noted the two-year delay in filing the FIR, lack of actual physical injury despite allegations of grievous hurt, and that Rs. 21 lakhs were received by the complainant from the applicant, suggesting the complaint was filed to avoid repaying this amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts