State of Maharashtra vs Ganesh Namdeo Bhalerao Advocate - Sawant S.B. — 684/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 354,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 18th March 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHAU160032242025
Filing Number
1535/2025
Filing Date
14-09-2018
Registration No
684/2025
Registration Date
14-09-2018
Court
Gangapur Dist and Sessions Court
Judge
1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11
Police Station
WALUJ
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. Ankush A.U.
Respondent(s)
Ganesh Namdeo Bhalerao Advocate - Sawant S.B.
Manoj Santosh Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
Disposed
Judgment
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 12-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 06-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 27-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary In this case, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur acquitted both accused—Ganesh Namdev Bhalerao and Manoj Santosh Patil—charged under IPC Section 354 (read with 34) and POCSO Act Sections 8 and 12 for allegedly outraging the modesty of a girl on 14.01.2017. The court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the victim was a "child" as defined under POCSO (below 18 years), relying only on school records without producing the original birth certificate or medical evidence; additionally, the victim herself retracted her evidence during cross-examination, admitting she had good relations with the accused and lodged the FIR due to her mother's misunderstanding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary In this case, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur acquitted both accused—Ganesh Namdev Bhalerao and Manoj Santosh Patil—charged under IPC Section 354 (read with 34) and POCSO Act Sections 8 and 12 for allegedly outraging the modesty of a girl on 14.01.2017. The court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the victim was a "child" as defined under POCSO (below 18 years), relying only on school records without producing the original birth certificate or medical evidence; additionally, the victim herself retracted her evidence during cross-examination, admitting she had good relations with the accused and lodged the FIR due to her mother's misunderstanding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts