Anil Alias Sunil Vishnu Dhangar vs State of Maharashtra through PSO Risod — 76/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 02nd April 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application

CNR: MHWS010002662026

e-Filing Number

04-03-2026

Filing Number

152/2026

Filing Date

04-Mar-2026

Registration No

76/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Court

District and Sessions Court, Washim

Judge

3-District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL REFUSED

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

184

Police Station

RISOD

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

1.Anil Alias Sunil Vishnu Dhangar

Adv. BAJAD PRALHAD VITTHALRAO

Respondent(s)

1.State of Maharashtra through PSO Risod
2.Kanhupatra Madhav Taktode

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
02-Apr-2026

Order on ExhibitView PDF

Case Summary: Cri.B.A. No. 76/2026 Decision: The court rejected Anil Dhangar's anticipatory bail application. The Additional Sessions Judge found prima facie evidence of the accused's involvement in allegedly using criminal force against a minor SC/ST girl with intent to outrage her modesty, and determined he did not deserve anticipatory bail at that stage due to risk of witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
02-Apr-2026

Disposed

District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim
01-Apr-2026

Order

District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim
30-Mar-2026

Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim
27-Mar-2026

Order

District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim
24-Mar-2026

Hearing

District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim
16-Mar-2026

Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

District Judge 2 and Asj, Washim
06-Mar-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
04-Mar-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 76/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Cri.B.A. No. 76/2026 Decision: The court rejected Anil Dhangar's anticipatory bail application. The Additional Sessions Judge found prima facie evidence of the accused's involvement in allegedly using criminal force against a minor SC/ST girl with intent to outrage her modesty, and determined he did not deserve anticipatory bail at that stage due to risk of witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.