Dattatray Subhash Sonawane vs State of Maharashtra — 198/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 12th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHRG170004052026
e-Filing Number
05-03-2026
Filing Number
314/2026
Filing Date
05-03-2026
Registration No
198/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist., Raigad
Judge
3-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist. Raigad
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
25
Police Station
Uran Police station
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dattatray Subhash Sonawane
Adv. BHOIR DHANASHREE GANESH
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist. Raigad
Disposed
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Dattatray Subhash Sonawane v. State of Maharashtra (198/2026) The court rejected the bail application of Dattatray Subhash Sonawane, arrested for theft of melon seeds and CPU components worth approximately Rs. 102 lakhs. The judge ruled that the arrest was justified despite the applicant not being named in the original FIR, as investigation revealed his active participation in the crime and production of forged authorization certificates to customs officers. The court found no illegality in the arrest under BNSS 2023 sections, holding that while Section 35 notice is generally mandatory for offences punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment, exceptions exist allowing arrest when reasonable grounds are established during investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Dattatray Subhash Sonawane v. State of Maharashtra (198/2026) The court rejected the bail application of Dattatray Subhash Sonawane, arrested for theft of melon seeds and CPU components worth approximately Rs. 102 lakhs. The judge ruled that the arrest was justified despite the applicant not being named in the original FIR, as investigation revealed his active participation in the crime and production of forged authorization certificates to customs officers. The court found no illegality in the arrest under BNSS 2023 sections, holding that while Section 35 notice is generally mandatory for offences punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment, exceptions exist allowing arrest when reasonable grounds are established during investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts