The State of Maharashtra vs Deepak Murlidhar Ghaymukte Advocate - Vyavahare A. B. — 386/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHAH030019402022

Arguments

Next Hearing

16th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1939/2022

Filing Date

14-03-2022

Registration No

386/2022

Registration Date

15-03-2022

Court

Chief Judicial Magistarte ,Ahmednagar

Judge

30-7th Jt. CJSD and Addl. CJM

FIR Details

FIR Number

182

Police Station

Nagar Taluka Police Station

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 379

Petitioner(s)

The State of Maharashtra

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Deepak Murlidhar Ghaymukte Advocate - Vyavahare A. B.

Kiran Bappu Ghaymukte

Adv. Vyavahare A. B.

Amol Shahaji Gaikwad

Adv. Vyavahare A. B.

Hearing History

Judge: 30-7th Jt. CJSD and Addl. CJM

07-04-2026

Arguments

09-03-2026

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

10-02-2026

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

08-01-2026

Evidence Part Heard

26-11-2025

Evidence Part Heard

Interim Orders

10-02-2026
Evidence

Case Summary: This is a criminal case (G.R. Case No. 386/2022) involving theft of a three-wheeler motor, filed under IPC Section 379. The court examined Government Witness No. 4 (Assistant Police Officer Jabbbar Rahimkhan Pathan) on the investigation conducted. During cross-examination by the defense, critical contradictions emerged—the witness admitted that he did not prepare the crime scene panchnama at the police station, did not record witness statements as stated, failed to verify that the seized motor belonged to the complainant, and wrongly described the vehicle specifications in the seizure document. Verdict: Petition completely allowed with no further cross-examination required, as the prosecution's case was found to be riddled with procedural and evidentiary defects. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: This is a criminal case (G.R. Case No. 386/2022) involving theft of a three-wheeler motor, filed under IPC Section 379. The court examined Government Witness No. 4 (Assistant Police Officer Jabbbar Rahimkhan Pathan) on the investigation conducted. During cross-examination by the defense, critical contradictions emerged—the witness admitted that he did not prepare the crime scene panchnama at the police station, did not record witness statements as stated, failed to verify that the seized motor belonged to the complainant, and wrongly described the vehicle specifications in the seizure document. Verdict: Petition completely allowed with no further cross-examination required, as the prosecution's case was found to be riddled with procedural and evidentiary defects. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Chief Judicial Magistarte ,Ahmednagar All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case