The State Parner Police Station vs Santosh Sudam Thube Advocate - NIL — 475/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65E. Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 09th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHAH250011682024
Filing Number
703/2024
Filing Date
10-Jun-2024
Registration No
475/2024
Registration Date
11-Jun-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division ,Parner
Judge
1-CIVIL Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
Decision Date
09-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC
Last updated 14-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
251
Police Station
PARNER POLICE STATION
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.The State Parner Police Station
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Santosh Sudam Thube Advocate - NIL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The court stopped proceedings against accused Santosh Thube under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and discharged him from the offense under Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The discharge was granted due to the prosecution's inability to secure the accused's presence despite multiple summons over a considerable period and the absence of a Complaint Report, making it impossible to conduct a fair trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Mar-2026
Disposed
CIVIL Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
-
09-Dec-2025
Awaiting Summons
CIVIL Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
-
09-Sep-2025
Awaiting Summons
CIVIL Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
-
15-Jul-2025
Awaiting Summons
CIVIL Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
-
20-Mar-2025
Awaiting Summons
CIVIL Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
-
26-Dec-2024
Awaiting Summons
CIVIL Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
-
16-Oct-2024
Awaiting Summons
CIVIL Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
-
16-Jul-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Jun-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 475/2024
The court stopped proceedings against accused Santosh Thube under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and discharged him from the offense under Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The discharge was granted due to the prosecution's inability to secure the accused's presence despite multiple summons over a considerable period and the absence of a Complaint Report, making it impossible to conduct a fair trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts