Dismissed¶28

Samadhan Uttam Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. D.G.P., Buldhana, for Pso, Amdapur, Tq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana

Bombay HC30 Apr 2026APPP/1462/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Relaxation of exclusionary bail condition refused; condition barring accused from vicinity of village Dhotrabhangoji, Taluka Chikhali, District Buldhana retained because witnesses reside in the same village and condition was accepted by accused; grounds of agricultural land, children's education and aged father rejected; Criminal Application APPP 1462/2026 in BA 315/2026; Nagpur Bench; M.M. Nerlikar J.; 30.04.2026; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 02.09.2025 imposing the bail condition is recently passed. ¶28

Samadhan Uttam Joshi vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. D.G.P., Buldhana, for Pso, Amdapur, Tq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:6721

300426appp1462.26

Order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPP] NO.1462 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 315 OF 2026.

¶7

Samadhan Uttam Joshi

¶8

VERSUS-

¶9

State of Maharashtra

¶10

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

¶11

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶12

Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms S.N. Thakur, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant.

¶13

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

¶14

DATE : APRIL 30, 2026.

¶15

Heard.

¶16

By this application, the applicant is seeking relaxation of condition no.[iii] incorporated in order dated

¶17

02.09.2025 passed by this Court while granting bail to the

¶18

applicant, which reads as under :

¶19

“(iii) The applicant shall not enter into the vicinity of village Dhotrabhangoji, Taluka Chikhali, District Buldhana, till culmination of the trial.”

¶20

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that

¶21

the applicant is havaing agricultural field at village

¶22

Dhotrabhangoji, Taluka Chikhali, District Buldhana, his

Rgd.

Order

300426appp1462.26

children are taking education and father is aged 78 years having problem of eye sight. His wife is housewife, and therefore, considering these circumstances, the condition be relaxed.

¶28

The order dated 02.09.2025, is recently passed. The purpose behind imposing such condition appears to me that the witnesses are residing in the same village. Further the condition imposed was on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the same has been accepted by the applicant. In view of above, I am not inclined to relax the condition no.(iii). Criminal Application is therefore, rejected.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 30/04/2026 18:07:05 Rgd.

Samadhan Uttam Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. D.G.P., Buldhana, for Pso, Amdapur, Tq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samadhan Uttam Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. D.G.P., Buldhana, for Pso, Amdapur, Tq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek @ Babu Devidas Sahu vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Nagpuri Gate, Amravati, Dist. Amravati

Shri. Pratik S/O Kishor Gulhane vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Superintendnet of Police Rural , Nagpur

Nilesh S/O Rajesh Pardeshi vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Pusad City Tah. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal and Anr.

Dineshchandra S/O Prabhudayal Sharma vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Ps Beltarodi Nagpur City, Nagpur

Sunil S/O Narendra Rathod vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Karanja, Dist. Washim

Rakesh Kumar S/O Omprakash Sharma vs Central Bureau of Investigation