State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O. Ettapali vs Surendra Pundalik Gadling Advocate - J.C.Meshram — 57/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 307, 341, 342, 435, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147,148,149,120 (B). Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHGA130001432023
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
72/2023
Filing Date
22-07-2023
Registration No
57/2023
Registration Date
22-07-2023
Court
District and Additional Sessions Court Aheri
Judge
3-District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge Aheri
FIR Details
FIR Number
035
Police Station
Etapalli
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O. Ettapali
Adv. DGP/AGP
Respondent(s)
Surendra Pundalik Gadling Advocate - J.C.Meshram
Varavara Rao Kondala Ramarao Pindiyala
Adv. J.C.Meshram
Masa Mura Hichami
Adv. R.P.Tembhurne
Lalu kehka Gundaru
Thuge Dalsu Hichami
Adv. R.M.Menganwar
Dinesh Masu Pungati
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge Aheri
Hearing
Hearing
List of Witness
List of Witness
List of Witness
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-05-2026 | Hearing |
| 13-05-2026 | Hearing |
| 28-04-2026 | List of Witness |
| 16-04-2026 | List of Witness |
| 02-04-2026 | List of Witness |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 57/2023 Outcome: Application rejected. Accused No. 11's application to surrender before the court was rejected on 18.03.2026. The court found no valid grounds for surrender because: (1) cognizance was never taken against accused No. 11; (2) no supplementary charge sheet exists against him; (3) under UAPA Section 45, government sanction is required before cognizance, and the sanction order does not mention accused No. 11's name. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 57/2023 Outcome: Application rejected. Accused No. 11's application to surrender before the court was rejected on 18.03.2026. The court found no valid grounds for surrender because: (1) cognizance was never taken against accused No. 11; (2) no supplementary charge sheet exists against him; (3) under UAPA Section 45, government sanction is required before cognizance, and the sanction order does not mention accused No. 11's name. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts