Vipesh Vinayak Salvi vs State of Maharashtra Through State Excise Police Station Advocate - APP — 773/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 12th March 2026.

Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application

CNR: MHPU010018492026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

06-02-2026

Filing Number

1291/2026

Filing Date

09-02-2026

Registration No

773/2026

Registration Date

09-02-2026

Court

District and Session Court ,Pune

Judge

8-DISTRICT JUDGE -6 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

FIR Details

FIR Number

46

Police Station

STATE EXCISE

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65,65(A)(E), 81,83, 103,108

Petitioner(s)

Vipesh Vinayak Salvi

Adv. D LIMA DON JOHN JOSSEY

Respondent(s)

State of Maharashtra Through State Excise Police Station Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Hearing History

Judge: 8-DISTRICT JUDGE -6 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE

12-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

Order

02-03-2026

Order

24-02-2026

Order

16-02-2026

Reply/Say

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

The court granted anticipatory bail to Vipesh Vinayak Salvi, accused of purchasing prohibited liquor (worth Rs.88,56,000) transported from Goa to Maharashtra. The court found that since nothing needed to be recovered from the applicant and he was only required for interrogation, detention was unnecessary—suitable bail conditions with a Rs.30,000 bond and cooperation requirements would suffice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted anticipatory bail to Vipesh Vinayak Salvi, accused of purchasing prohibited liquor (worth Rs.88,56,000) transported from Goa to Maharashtra. The court found that since nothing needed to be recovered from the applicant and he was only required for interrogation, detention was unnecessary—suitable bail conditions with a Rs.30,000 bond and cooperation requirements would suffice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Session Court ,Pune All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case