State of Maharashtra Through PSO Tamgaon. vs Vinod Suryabhan Chouke. — 413/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHBU180007872025

Filing Number

628/2025

Filing Date

24-Jun-2025

Registration No

413/2025

Registration Date

24-Jun-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Sangrampur

Judge

1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

Last updated 20-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

201

Police Station

Tamgaon

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra Through PSO Tamgaon.

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vinod Suryabhan Chouke.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary The court suspended criminal proceedings against the accused Vinod under CrPC Section 258, finding that the investigating officer failed to submit the chemical analysis report despite the chargesheet being filed. The judge ruled that continuing the trial without crucial evidence would likely result in acquittal, therefore ordered the accused's discharge and cancellation of bail bond, with seized material to be destroyed per appeal period rules. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  4. 10-Dec-2025

    Order

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  5. 19-Nov-2025

    Order

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  6. 24-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 24-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 413/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court suspended criminal proceedings against the accused Vinod under CrPC Section 258, finding that the investigating officer failed to submit the chemical analysis report despite the chargesheet being filed. The judge ruled that continuing the trial without crucial evidence would likely result in acquittal, therefore ordered the accused's discharge and cancellation of bail bond, with seized material to be destroyed per appeal period rules. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case