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

Arguments

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),338,337,336(3),340(2),3(5),61(2)

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

22-04-2026

Arguments

10-04-2026

Arguments

02-04-2026

Arguments

18-03-2026

Arguments

10-03-2026

Arguments

Interim Orders

31-01-2026
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District Court-1 ,Malegaon All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case