Kulmit Singh Dalveersingh Randhawa vs The State of Maharashtra — 117/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 20th April 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHRG170002512026
e-Filing Number
06-02-2026
Filing Number
185/2026
Filing Date
06-02-2026
Registration No
117/2026
Registration Date
06-02-2026
Court
District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist., Raigad
Judge
1-District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel
Decision Date
20th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
384
Police Station
Taloja Police Station Tal.Panvel
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kulmit Singh Dalveersingh Randhawa
Adv. BHOSALE INDRAJEET ANANDRAO
Respondent(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel
Disposed
Order
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-04-2026 | Order | |
| 15-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 07-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel rejected Kulmit Singh Randhwa's bail application in a serious NDPS Act case involving 258.2 gms of heroin and 40.2 gms of opium recovered from his residence. The court found that commercial quantities of contraband were recovered from the applicant's premises, he received online payments from co-accused in exchange for contraband, and the investigation remained at an early stage with other accused still absconding—factors that outweighed arguments based on lack of direct recovery from him, delayed arrest, and medical grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel rejected Kulmit Singh Randhwa's bail application in a serious NDPS Act case involving 258.2 gms of heroin and 40.2 gms of opium recovered from his residence. The court found that commercial quantities of contraband were recovered from the applicant's premises, he received online payments from co-accused in exchange for contraband, and the investigation remained at an early stage with other accused still absconding—factors that outweighed arguments based on lack of direct recovery from him, delayed arrest, and medical grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts