Lavesh Rajendra Kopardar vs State of Maharashtra through Poynad Police Station — 25/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Uncontested--BAIL GRANTED on 09th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHRG010002142026
e-Filing Number
27-02-2026
Filing Number
73/2026
Filing Date
27-02-2026
Registration No
25/2026
Registration Date
27-02-2026
Court
District and Session Court Raigad
Judge
16-DISTRICT JUDGE-3 AND ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--BAIL GRANTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
21
Police Station
Poynad Police Station
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lavesh Rajendra Kopardar
Adv. Ankit Bangera
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra through Poynad Police Station
Hearing History
Judge: 16-DISTRICT JUDGE-3 AND ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 05-03-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 02-03-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 27-02-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court granted bail to applicant Lavesh Rajendra Kopardar in a case involving extortion and attempted murder at a resort. While the FIR describes serious allegations including armed intimidation and firearm use, the court found that the most serious overt acts—drawing a pistol and attempting to fire it—were specifically attributed only to the principal accused, not the applicant. The court reasoned that the applicant's limited role (accompanying the principal accused), one month of custody already served, and lack of necessity for further custodial interrogation warranted bail with conditions including a Rs.1 lakh bond and weekly police reporting for three months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court granted bail to applicant Lavesh Rajendra Kopardar in a case involving extortion and attempted murder at a resort. While the FIR describes serious allegations including armed intimidation and firearm use, the court found that the most serious overt acts—drawing a pistol and attempting to fire it—were specifically attributed only to the principal accused, not the applicant. The court reasoned that the applicant's limited role (accompanying the principal accused), one month of custody already served, and lack of necessity for further custodial interrogation warranted bail with conditions including a Rs.1 lakh bond and weekly police reporting for three months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts