State of Maharashtra P.S. Waluj vs Sachin Bhgchand Waghchaure Advocate - Ghanekar N.S. — 83/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302,307,120-B,34. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHAU160003382025
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
Filing Number
178/2025
Filing Date
08-07-2024
Registration No
83/2025
Registration Date
08-07-2024
Court
Gangapur Dist and Sessions Court
Judge
1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
FIR Details
FIR Number
94
Police Station
WALUJ
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra P.S. Waluj
Adv. Jadhav M.R.
Respondent(s)
Sachin Bhgchand Waghchaure Advocate - Ghanekar N.S.
Vishal Rupchand Waghchaure
Adv. Ghanekar N.S.
Rupchand Laxman Waghchaure
Adv. Sonune N.J.
Ram Vitthal Solat
Adv. Sonune N.J.
Sandeep Abasaheb Barde
Adv. Sonune N.J.
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 |
|---|---|
| 20-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 15-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 07-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 02-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 18-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 83/2025 The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the prosecution's applications to produce Call Detail Records (CDR) and Subscriber Detail Records (SDR) along with Section 65-B Evidence Act certificates at a belated stage, despite the accused's objection that these documents should have been furnished with the charge-sheet. The court held that while the CDR/SDR were already on record, subsequent production of the Section 65-B certificates was permissible as the Evidence Act requires their production but not the timing, and the defence retains the right to challenge authenticity through cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 83/2025 The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the prosecution's applications to produce Call Detail Records (CDR) and Subscriber Detail Records (SDR) along with Section 65-B Evidence Act certificates at a belated stage, despite the accused's objection that these documents should have been furnished with the charge-sheet. The court held that while the CDR/SDR were already on record, subsequent production of the Section 65-B certificates was permissible as the Evidence Act requires their production but not the timing, and the defence retains the right to challenge authenticity through cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts