Sahil Ali Mujaffar Ali vs The State of Maharashtra through P.S. Wadgaon Road Advocate - Assistant Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) — 143/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 26th May 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application

CNR: MHYA010010802026

e-Filing Number

20-05-2026

Filing Number

365/2026

Filing Date

20-May-2026

Registration No

143/2026

Registration Date

21-May-2026

Court

District and Session Court , Yavatmal

Judge

18-District Judge-1 and A.s.j., Yavatmal

Decision Date

26-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1167

Police Station

Awadhutwadi

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sahil Ali Mujaffar Ali

    Adv. DARNE VIRENDRA DEVIDASRAO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Maharashtra through P.S. Wadgaon Road Advocate - Assistant Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-May-2026

    Order on Exhibit

    Case 143/2026 Summary: The court rejected Sahil Ali's bail application in a case involving allegations of forming an unlawful assembly and attacking a person with a knife, causing injuries to the victim's thigh and fingers. The court found that although criminal antecedents alone cannot justify bail denial, the applicant's significantly greater culpability compared to co-accused (who received anticipatory bail), combined with five prior convictions for bodily crimes and the serious nature of the allegations, justified detention due to risk of witness tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-May-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge-1 and A.s.j., Yavatmal

  4. 22-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 20-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 143/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 143/2026 Summary: The court rejected Sahil Ali's bail application in a case involving allegations of forming an unlawful assembly and attacking a person with a knife, causing injuries to the victim's thigh and fingers. The court found that although criminal antecedents alone cannot justify bail denial, the applicant's significantly greater culpability compared to co-accused (who received anticipatory bail), combined with five prior convictions for bodily crimes and the serious nature of the allegations, justified detention due to risk of witness tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case