Basavraj Sidram Navale vs The State Of Maharashtra-Through D.G.P. Solapur Advocate - DGP P.M.Rajput — 155/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 31st March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application

CNR: MHSO010005112026

e-Filing Number

02-03-2026

Filing Number

315/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

155/2026

Registration Date

02-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Court , Solapur

Judge

6-Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

Decision Date

31-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

236

Police Station

Faujdar Chawadi

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),85,127(2),109,115(2),316(2),3(5)
Dowry Prohibition Act Section 4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Basavraj Sidram Navale

    Adv. Matre Rajkumar Siddharam

  2. 2.Prema Basavraj Navale

    Adv. Matre Rajkumar Siddharam

  3. 3.Akash Vyankatesh Chintamani

    Adv. Matre Rajkumar Siddharam

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State Of Maharashtra-Through D.G.P. Solapur Advocate - DGP P.M.Rajput

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: Cri.B.A. No. 155/2026 Court Decision: The anticipatory bail application was partly allowed. Applicant No. 3 (Akash Vyankatesh Chintamani) was granted anticipatory bail on Rs. 20,000 bond after the court found documentary evidence (passport and flight tickets) proving he was traveling to Dubai on 17/02/2026 when the alleged neck-pressing incident occurred, establishing his alibi. However, the bail applications of Applicants 1 and 2 (Basavraj Sidram Navale and Prema Basavraj Navale) were rejected due to prima facie evidence of their involvement in a dowry-related cheating and assault scheme targeting the informant's daughters. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  5. 27-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  6. 25-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  7. 23-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  8. 20-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  9. 18-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  10. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  11. 13-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  12. 11-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  13. 10-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  14. 09-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  15. 06-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  16. 05-Mar-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  17. 04-Mar-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Session Judge

  18. 02-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  19. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 155/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Cri.B.A. No. 155/2026 Court Decision: The anticipatory bail application was partly allowed. Applicant No. 3 (Akash Vyankatesh Chintamani) was granted anticipatory bail on Rs. 20,000 bond after the court found documentary evidence (passport and flight tickets) proving he was traveling to Dubai on 17/02/2026 when the alleged neck-pressing incident occurred, establishing his alibi. However, the bail applications of Applicants 1 and 2 (Basavraj Sidram Navale and Prema Basavraj Navale) were rejected due to prima facie evidence of their involvement in a dowry-related cheating and assault scheme targeting the informant's daughters. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case