State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O.P.S Balapur Tq. Balapur Dist. Akola vs Nagesh Vinod Umale — 3/2025
Case under The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Section 3,4,5,6,8,9,12. Status: Fixing date of Hearing. Next hearing: 02nd April 2026.
Spl.Case Child Prot. - Spl.Case Child Prot. Act
CNR: MHAK010001342025
Next Hearing
02nd April 2026
e-Filing Number
08-01-2025
Filing Number
45/2025
Filing Date
08-01-2025
Registration No
3/2025
Registration Date
08-01-2025
Court
District and Session Court , Akola
Judge
3-District Judge II Akola
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O.P.S Balapur Tq. Balapur Dist. Akola
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Nagesh Vinod Umale
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge II Akola
Fixing date of Hearing
Awaiting Muddemal
Awaiting Muddemal
Awaiting Muddemal
Awaiting Muddemal
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Fixing date of Hearing |
| 09-02-2026 | Awaiting Muddemal |
| 14-01-2026 | Awaiting Muddemal |
| 28-11-2025 | Awaiting Muddemal |
| 28-10-2025 | Awaiting Muddemal |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Sessions Court at Akola rejected the bail application filed by Nagesh Vinod Umale, accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl under the POCSO Act and BNS sections. The court found the charge-sheet contained sufficient prima facie evidence of penetrative sexual assault and rejected the accused's claims of a consensual relationship, noting the victim's tender age precluded any mature consent. The court held this was not a fit case for bail discretion given the serious nature of the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Sessions Court at Akola rejected the bail application filed by Nagesh Vinod Umale, accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl under the POCSO Act and BNS sections. The court found the charge-sheet contained sufficient prima facie evidence of penetrative sexual assault and rejected the accused's claims of a consensual relationship, noting the victim's tender age precluded any mature consent. The court held this was not a fit case for bail discretion given the serious nature of the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts