State of Maharashtra vs Adinath@Akash Ananda Rawankar Advocate - Kulkarni PC — 21/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302,201,120B,364,34. Status: Awaiting Muddemal. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
Spl.Case
CNR: MHBU110005942024
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
Filing Number
268/2024
Filing Date
04-06-2024
Registration No
21/2024
Registration Date
04-06-2024
Court
District and Sessions Judge, Malkapur
Judge
2-Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
FIR Details
FIR Number
162
Police Station
Nandura
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Adinath@Akash Ananda Rawankar Advocate - Kulkarni PC
Mayur Vijay Shelar
Adv. Kulkarni PC
Rupesh Devidas Kurwade
Adv. Husain TM
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Awaiting Muddemal
Awaiting Muddemal
Awaiting Muddemal
Awaiting Muddemal
Awaiting Muddemal
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-05-2026 | Awaiting Muddemal |
| 04-05-2026 | Awaiting Muddemal |
| 20-04-2026 | Awaiting Muddemal |
| 06-04-2026 | Awaiting Muddemal |
| 25-03-2026 | Awaiting Muddemal |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Special Judge ordered charges to be framed against accused Adinath @ Akash Ananda Rawankar and two co-accused for murder (IPC §302), concealment of evidence (§201), kidnapping (§364), criminal conspiracy (§120B), and offenses under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The bail application filed by the accused was rejected due to serious nature of charges, strong circumstantial evidence including CCTV footage, and risk of witness tampering. The court ordered expedited trial proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Special Judge ordered charges to be framed against accused Adinath @ Akash Ananda Rawankar and two co-accused for murder (IPC §302), concealment of evidence (§201), kidnapping (§364), criminal conspiracy (§120B), and offenses under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The bail application filed by the accused was rejected due to serious nature of charges, strong circumstantial evidence including CCTV footage, and risk of witness tampering. The court ordered expedited trial 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