Suvarna Dilip Ahire vs State Thr. Chavani Police Stn Malegaon — 118/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 06th May 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHNS070002652026
Next Hearing
06th May 2026
e-Filing Number
24-01-2026
Filing Number
201/2026
Filing Date
27-01-2026
Registration No
118/2026
Registration Date
27-01-2026
Court
District Court-1 ,Malegaon
Judge
1-District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon
FIR Details
FIR Number
21
Police Station
MALEGAON CHAWANI POLICE STATION
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Suvarna Dilip Ahire
Adv. DEORE SANJEEV KUMAR BAPU
Respondent(s)
State Thr. Chavani Police Stn Malegaon
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 02-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Criminal Bail Application No. 118 of 2026 | Suvarna Dilip Ahire v. State of Maharashtra The Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon allowed the complainant's (Shekhar Ashok Patil) application for intervention in the anticipatory bail proceedings. The court held that while the complainant does not qualify as a "victim" under Section 2(1)(y) of BNSS 2023, he retains the right to make oral submissions and present factual aspects not covered by the investigating officer's report, relying on the precedent in *Vinay Potdar v. State of Maharashtra*. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Criminal Bail Application No. 118 of 2026 | Suvarna Dilip Ahire v. State of Maharashtra The Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon allowed the complainant's (Shekhar Ashok Patil) application for intervention in the anticipatory bail proceedings. The court held that while the complainant does not qualify as a "victim" under Section 2(1)(y) of BNSS 2023, he retains the right to make oral submissions and present factual aspects not covered by the investigating officer's report, relying on the precedent in *Vinay Potdar v. State of Maharashtra*. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts