The State Of Maharashtra vs Yusuf Khan Usman Khan — 1725/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 188,269,270. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 20th April 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHBU130027752025

Filing Number

2450/2025

Filing Date

14-Nov-2025

Registration No

1725/2025

Registration Date

14-Nov-2025

Court

Civil Judge Junior Division , Chikhli

Judge

1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

Decision Date

20-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 20-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 188,269,270
Disaster Management Act Section 51(b)
Epidemic Diseases Act Section 3,4
Maharashtra Police Act Section 135

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State Of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Yusuf Khan Usman Khan

  2. 2.Rais Khan Rashid Khan (Jamdar)

  3. 3.Rajesh Vishwanath Patil

  4. 4.Ashfak Kha Usman Kha

  5. 5.Sayyed Akram Sayyed Rahim

  6. 6.Rajendra Vasantrao Wadekar

  7. 7.Harish Mahadevsingh Rawal

  8. 8.Pramod Vishwanath Awsarmol

  9. 9.Shaikh Rauf Shaikh Kadar (Bagwan)

  10. 10.Shaikh Mehboob Shaikh Budan

  11. 11.Shaikh Salim (Bombaiya) Shaikh Bashir

  12. 12.Shaikh Salman Shaikh Hamid

  13. 13.Yusuf Khan Salam Khan

  14. 14.Hashim Khan Khalil Khan

  15. 15.Salim Kha Karim Kha

  16. 16.Bismillah Khan Chand Khan

  17. 17.Irfan Khan Usman Khan

  18. 18.Ajaj Ahmed Shah Ayyaz Shah

  19. 19.Shaikh Shakil (Garam) Shaikh Rehman

  20. 20.Rashid Khan Yusuf Khan (Jamadar)

  21. 21.Rajesh Panditrao Ekade

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Court Judgment Summary The court acquitted all 21 accused persons of charges under IPC sections 188, 269, 270, Disaster Management Act 2005 section 51(b), Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 sections 3-4, and Maharashtra Police Act 1951 section 135. The accused were charged for allegedly organizing a road inauguration ceremony during COVID-19 lockdown without proper protocols, but the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient evidence, lack of documentary proof of District Magistrate's order, and procedural deficiencies in the investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  5. 10-Apr-2026

    Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  6. 25-Mar-2026

    Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  8. 20-Feb-2026

    Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  9. 07-Feb-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  10. 02-Feb-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  11. 30-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  12. 23-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  13. 22-Jan-2026

    B.W._Unready

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  14. 14-Jan-2026

    B.W._Unready

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  15. 02-Jan-2026

    B.W._Unready

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  16. 20-Dec-2025

    B.W._Unready

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  17. 09-Dec-2025

    Appearance

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  18. 25-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And J.m.f.c., Chikhli

  19. 14-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 14-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1725/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Court Judgment Summary The court acquitted all 21 accused persons of charges under IPC sections 188, 269, 270, Disaster Management Act 2005 section 51(b), Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 sections 3-4, and Maharashtra Police Act 1951 section 135. The accused were charged for allegedly organizing a road inauguration ceremony during COVID-19 lockdown without proper protocols, but the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient evidence, lack of documentary proof of District Magistrate's order, and procedural deficiencies in the investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case