STATE OF MAHARASHATRA vs Mukesh Balu Adagale Advocate - Sanap V.S. — 17/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 143,147,148,149,523,506,307. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.

Sessions Case

CNR: MHBI010004032022

Case disposed

Filing Number

135/2022

Filing Date

27-01-2022

Registration No

17/2022

Registration Date

28-01-2022

Court

District and Sessions Court , Beed

Judge

1-PRIN.DIST. AND SESS.JUDGE/CHAIRMAN MACT BEED.

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

650

Police Station

Shivajinagar P.S. Beed.

Year

2017

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 143,147,148,149,523,506,307
Maharashtra Police Act Section 135
Indian Arms Act Section 3/27

Petitioner(s)

STATE OF MAHARASHATRA

Adv. Tandale A.S.

Respondent(s)

Mukesh Balu Adagale Advocate - Sanap V.S.

Anikesh Suresh Rakh

Avinash Machindra Nagare

Vishwajit Bhagwat Nagare

Rutupurna Bharat Nagare

Rupsing Sardarsing Tak

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRIN.DIST. AND SESS.JUDGE/CHAIRMAN MACT BEED.

12-03-2026

Disposed

24-02-2026

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

04-02-2026

Evidence Part Heard

23-01-2026

Evidence Part Heard

06-01-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court in Beed acquitted all six accused persons of charges including unlawful assembly, rioting, attempt to murder, and arms violations, as the prosecution's key witness (the informant) retracted his statements and denied both the incident and the accused's involvement. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the charges and accordingly acquitted the accused under Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court in Beed acquitted all six accused persons of charges including unlawful assembly, rioting, attempt to murder, and arms violations, as the prosecution's key witness (the informant) retracted his statements and denied both the incident and the accused's involvement. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the charges and accordingly acquitted the accused under Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Sessions Court , Beed All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case