Rutvik Santosh Bade vs State Of Maharashtra through Baramati City Police Station — 113/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 10th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHPU140002792026
e-Filing Number
11-02-2026
Filing Number
217/2026
Filing Date
12-02-2026
Registration No
113/2026
Registration Date
12-02-2026
Court
Additional District Court, Baramati
Judge
33-DISTRICT JUDGE 1 AND ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE BARAMATI
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
62
Police Station
BARAMATI CITY P.S.
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rutvik Santosh Bade
Adv. KARCHE MAYUR TANAJI
Respondent(s)
State Of Maharashtra through Baramati City Police Station
Hearing History
Judge: 33-DISTRICT JUDGE 1 AND ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE BARAMATI
Disposed
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Report
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 07-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 04-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 27-02-2026 | Report |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The court rejected Rutvik Santosh Bade's anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the CrPC for charges including outraging modesty (IPC §354), voluntarily causing hurt (§327), and assault (§§324, 323, 504, 506, 427). The court found sufficient evidence that Bade assaulted the complainant and his wife with weapons, snatched a mangalsutra, and made threats; notably, the victim-wife filed an affidavit opposing bail. Since no new material emerged after the previous bail rejection and the investigating officer required custody for recovery purposes, the court determined bail was unjustified given the serious nature of the offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected Rutvik Santosh Bade's anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the CrPC for charges including outraging modesty (IPC §354), voluntarily causing hurt (§327), and assault (§§324, 323, 504, 506, 427). The court found sufficient evidence that Bade assaulted the complainant and his wife with weapons, snatched a mangalsutra, and made threats; notably, the victim-wife filed an affidavit opposing bail. Since no new material emerged after the previous bail rejection and the investigating officer required custody for recovery purposes, the court determined bail was unjustified given the serious nature of the offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts