Milind Ankush Awale vs The state of Maharashtra Through Baramati City Police Station — 62/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 07th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHPU140001342026
e-Filing Number
27-01-2026
Filing Number
95/2026
Filing Date
29-01-2026
Registration No
62/2026
Registration Date
29-01-2026
Court
Additional District Court, Baramati
Judge
33-DISTRICT JUDGE 1 AND ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE BARAMATI
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
27
Police Station
BARAMATI CITY P.S.
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Milind Ankush Awale
Adv. HOLKAR ANIL KISANRAO
Respondent(s)
The state of Maharashtra Through Baramati City Police Station
Hearing History
Judge: 33-DISTRICT JUDGE 1 AND ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE BARAMATI
Disposed
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 05-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 27-02-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 23-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 20-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati rejected the anticipatory bail application of Milind Ankush Awale, accused of forging his wife's signature on a correction-deed to sell her gifted property (valued at over 50 lakhs) to third parties. The court found prima facie evidence of forgery supported by a handwriting expert's report and held that document-related criminal offences require custodial interrogation and investigation, rejecting the accused's argument that the dispute was purely civil in nature. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati rejected the anticipatory bail application of Milind Ankush Awale, accused of forging his wife's signature on a correction-deed to sell her gifted property (valued at over 50 lakhs) to third parties. The court found prima facie evidence of forgery supported by a handwriting expert's report and held that document-related criminal offences require custodial interrogation and investigation, rejecting the accused's argument that the dispute was purely civil in nature. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts