NIRAASHRIT GAUVANSH SEVA FOUNDATION MUKESH GUPTA vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR BORI POLICE STATION DIST. NAGPUR — APL/1292/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Next hearing: 07th July 2026.

Next hearing 07-Jul-2026

CNR: HCBM040186152026

e-Filing Number

12-06-2026

Filing Number

APL/5920/2026

Filing Date

16-Jun-2026

Registration No

APL/1292/2026

Registration Date

16-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 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (Maharashtra Amendment) Section 5(4) 5(8)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NIRAASHRIT GAUVANSH SEVA FOUNDATION MUKESH GUPTA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR BORI POLICE STATION DIST. NAGPUR

  2. 2.MUHAMMED FAISAL HAMZA

Case History

  1. 07-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-Jul-2026

    Applications For Admission Fresh (Criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. W. Chandwani

  3. 25-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  4. 17-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. W. ChandwaniView PDF

    Case Summary: In Criminal Application No. 1292 of 2026, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) issued notice to the respondents returnable on 07.07.2026. The State's counsel waived service and sought time to file a reply, while permission was granted to serve the second respondent through any available private mode. The matter was adjourned for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 16-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. APL/1292/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: In Criminal Application No. 1292 of 2026, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) issued notice to the respondents returnable on 07.07.2026. The State's counsel waived service and sought time to file a reply, while permission was granted to serve the second respondent through any available private mode. The matter was adjourned for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case