Mansoor Umer Antuley vs State Through Senior PI Police Station Panvel — 160/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 09th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHRG170003302026
e-Filing Number
23-02-2026
Filing Number
252/2026
Filing Date
23-02-2026
Registration No
160/2026
Registration Date
23-02-2026
Court
District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist., Raigad
Judge
6-District Judge 4 and Addl.Session Judge, Panvel-Raigad
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL REFUSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mansoor Umer Antuley
Adv. POKAR FAROOQUE AHMED JAVED
Respondent(s)
State Through Senior PI Police Station Panvel
Hearing History
Judge: 6-District Judge 4 and Addl.Session Judge, Panvel-Raigad
Disposed
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 06-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 05-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 04-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Panvel rejected Mansoor Umer Antuley's anticipatory bail application in a property fraud case. The court found the allegations of forging notarized documents and sale deeds to claim title over another's property were serious in nature, involving offences under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, and 471; the applicant's prior antecedents in three similar cases and the unregistered fraudulent documents used to establish property title justified denial of anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Panvel rejected Mansoor Umer Antuley's anticipatory bail application in a property fraud case. The court found the allegations of forging notarized documents and sale deeds to claim title over another's property were serious in nature, involving offences under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, and 471; the applicant's prior antecedents in three similar cases and the unregistered fraudulent documents used to establish property title justified denial of anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts