Pravin Kashinath Palashte alias Badgujar vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station, Wardha City Advocate - Assistant Public Prosecutor — 77/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 17th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHWR010004062026
e-Filing Number
24-02-2026
Filing Number
168/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
77/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Wardha
Judge
4-DISTRICT JUDGE-3 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE WARDHA
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
FIR Details
FIR Number
476
Police Station
Police Station Wardha
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pravin Kashinath Palashte alias Badgujar
Adv. Umate P.V.
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station, Wardha City Advocate - Assistant Public Prosecutor
Hearing History
Judge: 4-DISTRICT JUDGE-3 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE WARDHA
Disposed
Order
Hearing
Hearing
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Order |
| 07-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 25-02-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to Pravin Kashinath Palaste in a child marriage case (FIR No. 476/2024) under POCSO Act and IPC sections. The court found significant investigative gaps—particularly the failure to collect the victim's Aadhar card and conflicting statements from the victim and her mother regarding her age (initially shown as 18, later admitted as minor)—and concluded these issues should be adjudicated during trial rather than justifying custodial detention, especially given the accused's lack of criminal background. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to Pravin Kashinath Palaste in a child marriage case (FIR No. 476/2024) under POCSO Act and IPC sections. The court found significant investigative gaps—particularly the failure to collect the victim's Aadhar card and conflicting statements from the victim and her mother regarding her age (initially shown as 18, later admitted as minor)—and concluded these issues should be adjudicated during trial rather than justifying custodial detention, especially given the accused's lack of criminal background. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts