State of Maharashtra Through P.S. Dhamangaon Badhe vs Bhaskar Supda Jare Advocate - Gawande SN — 126/2023

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65d. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.

Evidence Part Heard Next hearing 23-Jun-2026 this date has passed

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHBU160001612023

Filing Number

144/2023

Filing Date

30-Jan-2023

Registration No

126/2023

Registration Date

30-Jan-2023

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Motala

Judge

1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

Last updated 20-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

307

Police Station

Dhamangaon Badhe

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65d

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra Through P.S. Dhamangaon Badhe

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Bhaskar Supda Jare Advocate - Gawande SN

Case History

  1. 23-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 28-Apr-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  4. 11-Feb-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  5. 16-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  6. 16-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  7. 10-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  8. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Summary: In case No. 126/2023, Government v. Bhaskar, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Morala Court, Buldhana District, recorded the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the prosecution's witness (Shailesh Raju Achar) on 02/12/2025. The witness testified regarding an alleged illegal liquor seizure case but later retracted his earlier statements, denying the police recovered 10 liters of country liquor from the accused or prepared any seizure panchnama (official record) in his presence. The court rejected the witness's claim of being a false witness for the accused and concluded the witness examination with no further cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  9. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  10. 30-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  11. 09-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  12. 28-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  13. 27-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  14. 14-May-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  15. 10-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  16. 11-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  17. 20-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  18. 09-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  19. 07-Dec-2024

    Compliance

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  20. 08-Oct-2024

    N.B.W._Unready

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  21. 15-Jul-2024

    B.W._Unready

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  22. 22-Apr-2024

    Awaiting Summons

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  23. 03-Feb-2024

    Awaiting Summons

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  24. 20-Nov-2023

    Awaiting Summons

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  25. 14-Aug-2023

    Awaiting Summons

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Motala

  26. 12-May-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 30-Jan-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 126/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In case No. 126/2023, Government v. Bhaskar, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Morala Court, Buldhana District, recorded the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the prosecution's witness (Shailesh Raju Achar) on 02/12/2025. The witness testified regarding an alleged illegal liquor seizure case but later retracted his earlier statements, denying the police recovered 10 liters of country liquor from the accused or prepared any seizure panchnama (official record) in his presence. The court rejected the witness's claim of being a false witness for the accused and concluded the witness examination with no further cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case