Akshay Anant Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra Through Shriwardhan Police Station Cr. No. 24/2026 — 30/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHRG150001402026

e-Filing Number

06-03-2026

Filing Number

77/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

30/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Court

District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon

Judge

2-District Judge 1 and Addl. Session Judge Mangaon

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL REFUSED

Last updated 30-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

24

Police Station

Shriwardhan Police Station

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Akshay Anant Pawar

    Adv. SHET MOHINI PRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of Maharashtra Through Shriwardhan Police Station Cr. No. 24/2026

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court rejected Akshay Anant Pawar's pre-arrest bail application in a case involving sexual offences against a minor under BNS Section 64(2)(m) and POCSO Act Sections 4, 8. The Additional Sessions Judge found prima facie material against the applicant for having physical relations with the minor, and determined that custody was necessary for interrogation and DNA sample collection, rejecting mitigating factors including the parties' subsequent marriage and the survivor's pregnancy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge 1 and Addl. Session Judge Mangaon

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 30/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected Akshay Anant Pawar's pre-arrest bail application in a case involving sexual offences against a minor under BNS Section 64(2)(m) and POCSO Act Sections 4, 8. The Additional Sessions Judge found prima facie material against the applicant for having physical relations with the minor, and determined that custody was necessary for interrogation and DNA sample collection, rejecting mitigating factors including the parties' subsequent marriage and the survivor's pregnancy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case