Akshay Ashok Jadhav vs Maharashtra State Through Shirval Police Station — 20/2026

Case under Passport Act 1950 Section 6. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHST080002792026

e-Filing Number

26-02-2026

Filing Number

246/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

20/2026

Registration Date

04-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Khandala

Judge

2-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Khandala.

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DECREED

Last updated 25-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Passport Act 1950 Section 6

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Akshay Ashok Jadhav

    Adv. DEVKHILE ASHOK SOPAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Maharashtra State Through Shirval Police Station

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The Khandala court granted permission to accused Akshay Ashok Jadhav to renew his passport for ten years, recognizing passport renewal as a fundamental right under Indian law, while imposing strict conditions that the passport cannot be used to flee justice and requires prior court permission before traveling abroad. The court balanced the accused's legitimate need to visit other countries against the state's concern about absconding by referencing Ministry of External Affairs guidelines requiring court permission for passport renewal when criminal proceedings are pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Khandala.

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Order

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Khandala.

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 20/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Khandala court granted permission to accused Akshay Ashok Jadhav to renew his passport for ten years, recognizing passport renewal as a fundamental right under Indian law, while imposing strict conditions that the passport cannot be used to flee justice and requires prior court permission before traveling abroad. The court balanced the accused's legitimate need to visit other countries against the state's concern about absconding by referencing Ministry of External Affairs guidelines requiring court permission for passport renewal when criminal proceedings are pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case