State of Maharashtra through P.S.O.P.S. Ural Tq Balapur Dist Akola vs Ashish Vasantrao Nage -others 5 Advocate - ATAL S.R. — 64/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498A,304B,306,504,506,34. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 30th March 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHAK010009212023
Next Hearing
30th March 2026
Filing Number
367/2023
Filing Date
08-03-2023
Registration No
64/2023
Registration Date
08-03-2023
Court
District and Session Court , Akola
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Akola
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra through P.S.O.P.S. Ural Tq Balapur Dist Akola
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Ashish Vasantrao Nage -others 5 Advocate - ATAL S.R.
Vasantrao Maroti Nage
Adv. ATAL S.R.
Shobha Vasantrao Nage
Adv. ATAL S.R.
Nitin Vasantrao Nage
Adv. ATAL S.R.
Jayashri Subhash Kharate
Adv. ATAL S.R.
Sharda Sandip Jamnik
Adv. ATAL S.R.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Akola
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 22-12-2025 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the accused's application to recall prosecution witness P.W. 3 (Vaibhav Ramdas Sable) for further cross-examination. The accused's advocate had inadvertently failed to cross-examine the witness on material omissions regarding statements made in the investigation records but not in the magistrate's statement under Section 164 CrPC. The court found that granting the opportunity would ensure fair trial for the accused facing serious charges under IPC Sections 304B and 498A without prejudicing the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the accused's application to recall prosecution witness P.W. 3 (Vaibhav Ramdas Sable) for further cross-examination. The accused's advocate had inadvertently failed to cross-examine the witness on material omissions regarding statements made in the investigation records but not in the magistrate's statement under Section 164 CrPC. The court found that granting the opportunity would ensure fair trial for the accused facing serious charges under IPC Sections 304B and 498A without prejudicing the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts