STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs Suhas Shrihari Munde — 55/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 65(1),74. Status: Charge. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

Spl.Case

CNR: MHBI180004572025

Charge

Next Hearing

08th June 2026

Filing Number

310/2025

Filing Date

29-07-2025

Registration No

55/2025

Registration Date

29-07-2025

Court

District and Additional Sessions Court Kaij

Judge

1-District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kaij

FIR Details

FIR Number

191

Police Station

DHARUR POLICE STATION

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 65(1),74
Child Marriage Restraint Act Section 9,10,11
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Section 4,6,8,12

Petitioner(s)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Respondent(s)

Suhas Shrihari Munde

Sukshala Madhukar Alias Baburao Tidke

Madhukar alias Baburao Shivaji Tidke

Chandrakala Shrihari Munde

Shrihari Sitaram Munde

Ganesh Pandurang Tidke

Sonali Ganesh Tidke

Pandurang Sakharam Tidke

Sheshikala alias Sheshabai Pandurang Tidke

Anil Sakharam Pathak

Jamuna Janardhan Ghammewad

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kaij

21-04-2026

Charge

12-03-2026

Charge

27-01-2026

Charge

15-01-2026

Charge

12-01-2026

Charge

Interim Orders

13-08-2025
Order on Exhibit

SUMMARY: Bail application of Suhas Shrihari Munde accused of POCSO and child marriage violations involving a 14-year-old victim has been rejected. The court found prima facie evidence that the victim was exploited and trafficked for sexual intercourse, with the accused committing penetrative sexual assault despite knowing the victim was a minor, constituting a serious offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: Bail application of Suhas Shrihari Munde accused of POCSO and child marriage violations involving a 14-year-old victim has been rejected. The court found prima facie evidence that the victim was exploited and trafficked for sexual intercourse, with the accused committing penetrative sexual assault despite knowing the victim was a minor, constituting a serious offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Additional Sessions Court Kaij All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case