State of Maharashtra vs Rangnath Sakharam Ghube Advocate - Sadar DR, Sadar DR — 84/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 354(a),452,342. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 12th May 2026.
Spl.Case
CNR: MHBU010013942021
Next Hearing
12th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
650/2021
Filing Date
14-12-2021
Registration No
84/2021
Registration Date
14-12-2021
Court
District and Session Court Buldhana
Judge
7-District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.
FIR Details
FIR Number
353
Police Station
Andhera
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. DGP
Respondent(s)
Rangnath Sakharam Ghube Advocate - Sadar DR, Sadar DR
Hearing History
Judge: 7-District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-05-2026 | Arguments | |
| 30-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 16-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 31-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary: The accused's application to recall the victim witness for further cross-examination on her age and date of birth was rejected. The court found the application devoid of merit, noting that the accused had already been afforded sufficient opportunity for cross-examination on February 24 and March 15, 2025, and had failed to challenge the victim's age during examination of all six prosecution witnesses. Since the victim was only 9 years old at the time of the alleged incident, any further questioning on age would be immaterial and pointless under POCSO Act proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The accused's application to recall the victim witness for further cross-examination on her age and date of birth was rejected. The court found the application devoid of merit, noting that the accused had already been afforded sufficient opportunity for cross-examination on February 24 and March 15, 2025, and had failed to challenge the victim's age during examination of all six prosecution witnesses. Since the victim was only 9 years old at the time of the alleged incident, any further questioning on age would be immaterial and pointless under POCSO Act proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts