State of Maharashtra vs Suraj Anil Bhandekar Advocate - V.R.Nimbekar — 39/2017

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 365,506,34. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHGA040003692017

Evidence

Next Hearing

01st June 2026

Filing Number

326/2017

Filing Date

28-08-2017

Registration No

39/2017

Registration Date

28-08-2017

Court

Civil Court Junior Divion , Armori

Judge

1-Civil Judge [Jr.Dn] J.M.F.C. Armori

FIR Details

FIR Number

0074

Police Station

Gadchiroli

Year

2017

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 365,506,34

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Suraj Anil Bhandekar Advocate - V.R.Nimbekar

Mohsin Usuf Ali

Adv. A.N.Kankate

Mujjafer Abdul Vahid Shikh

Adv. A.N.Kankate

Sachin Ishwar Donadkar

Adv. A.N.Kankate

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge [Jr.Dn] J.M.F.C. Armori

13-05-2026

Evidence

06-04-2026

Evidence

12-03-2026

Evidence

10-02-2026

Evidence

20-01-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

30-05-2018
Charge
30-05-2018
Charge
30-05-2018
Charge
30-05-2018
Charge
01-11-2025
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: The court allowed the application filed by accused nos. 1, 3, and 4 to separate their trial from accused no. 2. The separation was granted under Section 317(2) CrPC/Section 355(2) BNS 2023, as accused no. 2 had been consistently absent since the charge sheet was filed in 2017, causing unreasonable delay. The court held that separating the trial would not prejudice accused no. 2 and would uphold the accused's right to speedy trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The court allowed the application filed by accused nos. 1, 3, and 4 to separate their trial from accused no. 2. The separation was granted under Section 317(2) CrPC/Section 355(2) BNS 2023, as accused no. 2 had been consistently absent since the charge sheet was filed in 2017, causing unreasonable delay. The court held that separating the trial would not prejudice accused no. 2 and would uphold the accused's right to speedy trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Divion , Armori All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case