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-Sep-2018
Registration No
684/2025
Registration Date
14-Sep-2018
Court
Gangapur Dist and Sessions Court
Judge
1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 29-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11
Police Station
WALUJ
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra
Adv. Ankush A.U.
Respondent(s)
-
1.Ganesh Namdeo Bhalerao Advocate - Sawant S.B.
-
2.Manoj Santosh Patil
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
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.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
13-Mar-2026
Judgment
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
12-Mar-2026
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
06-Mar-2026
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
27-Feb-2026
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
13-Feb-2026
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
02-Feb-2026
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
21-Jan-2026
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
13-Jan-2026
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
03-Jan-2026
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
18-Dec-2025
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
08-Dec-2025
Evidence Part Heard
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
06-Dec-2025
Order on Exh
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
03-Dec-2025
Argument on Exh.____Ready
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
02-Dec-2025
Argument on Exh.____Ready
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
25-Nov-2025
Argument on Exh.____Ready
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
21-Nov-2025
Argument on Exh.____Ready
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
19-Nov-2025
Argument on Exh.____Ready
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
14-Oct-2025
N.B.W._Ready
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
19-Sep-2025
N.B.W._Ready
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
11-Aug-2025
N.B.W._Unready
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
02-Jul-2025
N.B.W._Unready
District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur
-
08-Apr-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
14-Sep-2018
Case filed
Registration No. 684/2025
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.
Explore other courts