STATE OF MAHARASHATRA vs Rushikesh Bapusaheb Khandare Advocate - Sagale V.K. — 162/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,143,147,148,504,506. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.

Sessions Case

CNR: MHBI010032512023

Case disposed

Filing Number

1431/2023

Filing Date

01-09-2023

Registration No

162/2023

Registration Date

02-09-2023

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

651

Police Station

Shivajinagar P.S. Beed.

Year

2017

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 341,143,147,148,504,506
Maharashtra Police Act Section 135

Petitioner(s)

STATE OF MAHARASHATRA

Adv. Tandale A.S.

Respondent(s)

Rushikesh Bapusaheb Khandare Advocate - Sagale V.K.

Ashish Arjun Nagargoje

Sandip Balasaheb Dahifale

Prajoyt Prataprao Rakh

Dipak Babasaheb Maske

Amol Marotirao Vitkar

Hearing History

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

12-03-2026

Disposed

24-02-2026

Evidence

04-02-2026

Evidence

23-01-2026

Evidence

06-01-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The Sessions Court, Beed acquitted five of six accused persons (Rushikesh Khandare, Ashish Nagargoje, Sandip Dahiphale, Prajyot Rakh, and Amol Vitkar) of charges under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 506 and Maharashtra Police Act Section 135, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case when the informant and injured eyewitnesses turned hostile and denied the incident. A supplementary charge-sheet was directed against the sixth accused (Dipak Maske). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Court, Beed acquitted five of six accused persons (Rushikesh Khandare, Ashish Nagargoje, Sandip Dahiphale, Prajyot Rakh, and Amol Vitkar) of charges under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 506 and Maharashtra Police Act Section 135, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case when the informant and injured eyewitnesses turned hostile and denied the incident. A supplementary charge-sheet was directed against the sixth accused (Dipak Maske). 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