STATE OF MAHARASHATRA vs Vrundavani Satish Fartare Advocate - Sawant S.S. — 189/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103,238,3(5). Status: Charge. Next hearing: 22nd July 2026.

Sessions Case

CNR: MHBI010042472025

Charge

Next Hearing

22nd July 2026

Filing Number

2137/2025

Filing Date

19-12-2025

Registration No

189/2025

Registration Date

20-12-2025

Court

District and Sessions Court , Beed

Judge

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

FIR Details

FIR Number

439

Police Station

Shivajinagar P.S. Beed.

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103,238,3(5)

Petitioner(s)

STATE OF MAHARASHATRA

Adv. Rakh B.S.

Respondent(s)

Vrundavani Satish Fartare Advocate - Sawant S.S.

Pruthaviraj Satish Phartare

Hearing History

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

16-05-2026

Charge

10-04-2026

Charge

09-04-2026

Charge

07-04-2026

Order on Exh

04-04-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

Interim Orders

09-04-2026
Order on Exhibit

BAIL GRANTED The Sessions Court at Beed allowed the bail application of accused Vrundavani Satish Fartare, charged under BNS sections 103, 238, and 3(5) (poisoning causing death) in a case involving the death of a 26-year-old widow. The court granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of equal amount, finding insufficient evidence of forced poisoning and noting absence of external injuries, witness testimony, CDR records, and CCTV footage, while considering the accused's three minor children and immovable property as factors against absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

BAIL GRANTED The Sessions Court at Beed allowed the bail application of accused Vrundavani Satish Fartare, charged under BNS sections 103, 238, and 3(5) (poisoning causing death) in a case involving the death of a 26-year-old widow. The court granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of equal amount, finding insufficient evidence of forced poisoning and noting absence of external injuries, witness testimony, CDR records, and CCTV footage, while considering the accused's three minor children and immovable property as factors against absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Court , Beed All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case