Shubham kailas bhalerao vs State of Maharashtra through PSO Ansing — 83/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 16th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHWS010002902026
e-Filing Number
07-03-2026
Filing Number
164/2026
Filing Date
07-Mar-2026
Registration No
83/2026
Registration Date
09-Mar-2026
Court
District and Sessions Court, Washim
Judge
6-District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL REFUSED
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
76
Police Station
ANSING
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Shubham kailas bhalerao
Adv. Adv. Piyush Diliprao Ingle
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra through PSO Ansing
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case Summary: Cri.B.A.No.83/2026 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge, Washim rejected Shubham Kailas Bhalerao's anticipatory bail application on March 16, 2026. Key Reasoning: The court found that the FIR disclosed specific criminal conduct by the accused (armed robbery of ₹80,000 with weapon still unsiezed), there was a prior extortion case pending against him, and critically, he had allegedly threatened the informant via Instagram to withdraw the FIR after its registration—constituting witness intimidation. These factors collectively rendered him unsuitable for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS Act, 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
13-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim
-
09-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 83/2026
Case Summary: Cri.B.A.No.83/2026 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge, Washim rejected Shubham Kailas Bhalerao's anticipatory bail application on March 16, 2026. Key Reasoning: The court found that the FIR disclosed specific criminal conduct by the accused (armed robbery of ₹80,000 with weapon still unsiezed), there was a prior extortion case pending against him, and critically, he had allegedly threatened the informant via Instagram to withdraw the FIR after its registration—constituting witness intimidation. These factors collectively rendered him unsuitable for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS Act, 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts