State of Maharashtra 3 vs Aadesh Aaditya Santosh Tayade Advocate - Patil P. P. — 142/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 324,325. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 21st April 2026.
R.C.C. - Reg.Cri.Case
CNR: MHAK090018422020
Next Hearing
21st April 2026
Filing Number
1656/2020
Filing Date
16-10-2020
Registration No
142/2020
Registration Date
16-10-2020
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Murtijapur
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra 3
Adv. Government Pleader
Respondent(s)
Aadesh Aaditya Santosh Tayade Advocate - Patil P. P.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 03-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary In this criminal case (FIR 142/2020) involving assault charges under Article 3, the court examined the testimony of witness Ajay Ganesh Bakode regarding an alleged incident of violence on 06.06.2020. The witness's credibility was substantially undermined during cross-examination, as he made several contradictory statements and admitted to providing false information to police. The court found significant inconsistencies between his police statement and court testimony, and rejected his evidence as unreliable. The cross-examination was completed and no further re-examination was conducted by the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In this criminal case (FIR 142/2020) involving assault charges under Article 3, the court examined the testimony of witness Ajay Ganesh Bakode regarding an alleged incident of violence on 06.06.2020. The witness's credibility was substantially undermined during cross-examination, as he made several contradictory statements and admitted to providing false information to police. The court found significant inconsistencies between his police statement and court testimony, and rejected his evidence as unreliable. The cross-examination was completed and no further re-examination was conducted by 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