State of Maharashtra vs Ganesh Jaysingh Bachhire Advocate - Chopade SM — 48/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302,201. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHBU010013032018
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
526/2018
Filing Date
18-08-2018
Registration No
48/2018
Registration Date
20-08-2018
Court
District and Session Court Buldhana
Judge
7-District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.
FIR Details
FIR Number
158
Police Station
Deulgaon Raja
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP Khatri SM
Respondent(s)
Ganesh Jaysingh Bachhire Advocate - Chopade SM
Hearing History
Judge: 7-District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 18-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 03-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The court allowed the application filed by witness Anil Hande to produce a Section 65-B certificate of the Evidence Act relating to CCTV footage from a pen drive in a murder trial (State vs. Ganesh). The court held that although a previously submitted certificate by a police constable was inadmissible, witness Hande—as a competent person with knowledge of CCTV operation—could produce the certificate at a later stage, relying on Supreme Court precedent that permits late production of electronic record certificates if essential for proper case disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The court allowed the application filed by witness Anil Hande to produce a Section 65-B certificate of the Evidence Act relating to CCTV footage from a pen drive in a murder trial (State vs. Ganesh). The court held that although a previously submitted certificate by a police constable was inadmissible, witness Hande—as a competent person with knowledge of CCTV operation—could produce the certificate at a later stage, relying on Supreme Court precedent that permits late production of electronic record certificates if essential for proper case disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts