State of Maharashtra P.S. MIDC Waluj vs Anita @ Parigabai Prabhakar Tribhuvan — 82/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302,201,34. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHAU160003312025
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
Filing Number
172/2025
Filing Date
26-08-2024
Registration No
82/2025
Registration Date
26-08-2024
Court
Gangapur Dist and Sessions Court
Judge
1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
FIR Details
FIR Number
467
Police Station
MIDC WALUJ
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra P.S. MIDC Waluj
Adv. Gande K.S.
Respondent(s)
Anita @ Parigabai Prabhakar Tribhuvan
Dilip Prabhakar Tribhuvan
Adv. Ghoderao A.V.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 08-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 08-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 25-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: S.C. No. 82/2025 Outcome: Second bail application REJECTED Anita @ Parigabai Prabhakar Tribhuvan and Dilip Prabhakar Tribhuvan filed a second bail application arguing that one year had elapsed since their first bail rejection without trial commencement, violating their Article 21 rights. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application, finding sufficient evidence of guilt (they allegedly assaulted the deceased with a wooden plank and stone causing fatal head injuries), determining that delay in trial alone does not mandate bail when evidence is strong and risk of absconding/evidence tampering exists. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: S.C. No. 82/2025 Outcome: Second bail application REJECTED Anita @ Parigabai Prabhakar Tribhuvan and Dilip Prabhakar Tribhuvan filed a second bail application arguing that one year had elapsed since their first bail rejection without trial commencement, violating their Article 21 rights. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application, finding sufficient evidence of guilt (they allegedly assaulted the deceased with a wooden plank and stone causing fatal head injuries), determining that delay in trial alone does not mandate bail when evidence is strong and risk of absconding/evidence tampering exists. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts