Maharashtra State vs Suraj Vasant Bodare — 145/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 386,395,397,307. Status: Order. Next hearing: 28th March 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHST210005332024
Next Hearing
28th March 2026
Filing Number
165/2024
Filing Date
04-05-2023
Registration No
145/2024
Registration Date
04-05-2023
Court
District and Additional Sessions Court, Phaltan
Judge
1-District Judge 1 and Addl Sessions Judge, Phaltan
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Maharashtra State
Respondent(s)
Suraj Vasant Bodare
Dnyaneshwar @ Nanya Vasant Bodare
Umesh Sanjay Khomane
Ranjit Kailas Bhandalkar
Amar Santosh Bhodare
Sachin Dattatray Mandale
Tanaji Nathaba Lokhande
Sharad @ Babu Nandkumar Pawar
Shambhu Ananda Nanaware
Vaibhav Hanmant Chavan
Sani Mohan Bodare
Shrikant Gulab Bodare
Ganesh Balu Madane
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge 1 and Addl Sessions Judge, Phaltan
Order
Order
Order
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Order |
| 17-03-2026 | Order |
| 10-03-2026 | Order |
| 06-03-2026 | Order |
| 26-02-2026 | Order |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The bail application of accused Dnyaneshwar @ Nanya Vasant Bodare in MCOCA Case No. 145/2024 has been rejected. The court found that the accused was actively present at the construction site incident on 26.11.2022, holding a sword while demanding extortion, and was directly involved in the violent attack on the informant. The court also noted four prior prosecutions against the accused within ten years, satisfying MCOCA requirements, and concluded that no risk could be taken regarding future offences despite stringent bail conditions offered by the defense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The bail application of accused Dnyaneshwar @ Nanya Vasant Bodare in MCOCA Case No. 145/2024 has been rejected. The court found that the accused was actively present at the construction site incident on 26.11.2022, holding a sword while demanding extortion, and was directly involved in the violent attack on the informant. The court also noted four prior prosecutions against the accused within ten years, satisfying MCOCA requirements, and concluded that no risk could be taken regarding future offences despite stringent bail conditions offered by the defense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts