PRASANNAJIT SANTOSH KUMAR SIKDAR vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH POLICE STATION OFFICER POLICE STATION RAMNAGAR — APL/1302/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM040185542026
e-Filing Number
15-06-2026
Filing Number
APL/5897/2026
Filing Date
15-Jun-2026
Registration No
APL/1302/2026
Registration Date
17-Jun-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. W. Chandwani
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. W. Chandwani
Bench Type
Single
Category
CRIMINAL ( 9 )
Sub-Category
QUASHING OF FIR C.R., CHARGE SHEET OR PROSECUTION ( 26 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.PRASANNAJIT SANTOSH KUMAR SIKDAR
Adv. HITESH A. BIHERANI,ADV. FOR APPLICANT NO. 1 TO 3,ADV. FOR APPLICANT NO. 1 TO 3, ADV. FOR APPLICANT NO. 1 TO
-
2.SANTOSH RATIKANT SIKDAR
Adv. HITESH ANANDRAM BIHERANI
-
3.MEENA SANTOSH SIKDAR
Adv. HITESH ANANDRAM BIHERANI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH POLICE STATION OFFICER POLICE STATION RAMNAGAR
-
2.HEMA PRASANNAJIT SIKDAR
Case History
-
19-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
29-Jun-2026
—
-
19-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. W. ChandwaniView PDF
Case Summary - APL 1302/2026 The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court issued notice to the non-applicants (State of Maharashtra and Hema Prasannajit Sikdar) returnable on July 10, 2026. The State's notice requirement was waived by the Additional Public Prosecutor, while the applicants were permitted to serve the second respondent through alternative private modes of service as allowed by law. The case was adjourned for substantive hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Jun-2026
Case filed
Registration No. APL/1302/2026
Case Summary - APL 1302/2026 The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court issued notice to the non-applicants (State of Maharashtra and Hema Prasannajit Sikdar) returnable on July 10, 2026. The State's notice requirement was waived by the Additional Public Prosecutor, while the applicants were permitted to serve the second respondent through alternative private modes of service as allowed by law. The case was adjourned for substantive hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts