State of Maharashtra vs Dhirendrasingh Govindsingh Bilwal Advocate - Lahoti SR — 166/2019
Case under Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7,12,15. Status: Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready. Next hearing: 31st July 2026.
Spl.Case ACB
CNR: MHBU200020272019
Next Hearing
31st July 2026
Filing Number
478/2019
Filing Date
11-06-2018
Registration No
166/2019
Registration Date
11-06-2018
Court
District Court and Addl.Sessions Court, Mehkar
Judge
2-Adhoc District Judge-1 and A.S.J.
FIR Details
FIR Number
53
Police Station
Mehkar
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. DGP
Respondent(s)
Dhirendrasingh Govindsingh Bilwal Advocate - Lahoti SR
Bhagwan Baliram Bharad
Tejusingh Narayansingh Purohit
Shaikh Rafik Shaikh Rashid
Gajanan Vitthal Jaiswal
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Adhoc District Judge-1 and A.S.J.
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-05-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 11-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 30-01-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 24-12-2025 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 21-11-2025 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
Interim Orders
Summary The discharge application filed by accused Dhirendrasingh Bilwal under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected on August 12, 2022. Although the accused argued that the sanction order was defective (granted by Special Inspector General of Police instead of Director General of Police), the court found that per Government Resolution dated 12.02.2013, the Special Inspector General of Police was empowered to grant such sanction, and prima facie strong evidence existed against the accused. The court held that post-framing of charge, discharge is not permissible under law, and the case proceeds to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The discharge application filed by accused Dhirendrasingh Bilwal under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected on August 12, 2022. Although the accused argued that the sanction order was defective (granted by Special Inspector General of Police instead of Director General of Police), the court found that per Government Resolution dated 12.02.2013, the Special Inspector General of Police was empowered to grant such sanction, and prima facie strong evidence existed against the accused. The court held that post-framing of charge, discharge is not permissible under law, and the case proceeds to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts