The State of Maharashtra vs Dattatray Balasaheb Datrange Advocate - Pokale H. B. — 1161/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 324, 323, 504, 506, 34. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHAH030060012022
Next Hearing
20th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
6000/2022
Filing Date
30-07-2022
Registration No
1161/2022
Registration Date
30-07-2022
Court
Chief Judicial Magistarte ,Ahmednagar
Judge
23-Chief Judicial Magistrate
FIR Details
FIR Number
235
Police Station
Tophkhana Police Station
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Dattatray Balasaheb Datrange Advocate - Pokale H. B.
Subham Anil Datrange
Adv. NIL
Akshay Gulab Datrange
Adv. NIL
Hearing History
Judge: 23-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 20-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 01-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the prosecution's application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon witness Priyanka Sandip Datrange to testify in the criminal case against Dattatray Balasaheb Datrange. The court found that her evidence was essential for just decision of the case as she was an eyewitness to the incident and an injured party, despite the investigation officer's failure to record her statement. Witness summons were accordingly issued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the prosecution's application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon witness Priyanka Sandip Datrange to testify in the criminal case against Dattatray Balasaheb Datrange. The court found that her evidence was essential for just decision of the case as she was an eyewitness to the incident and an injured party, despite the investigation officer's failure to record her statement. Witness summons were accordingly issued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts