State of Maharashtra through PSO Gondia City vs Tejas Yogesh Chandrikapure (POCSO) Advocate - Ahmed B.N. — 55/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363,376(2)(i). Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 14th July 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHGO010004972021
Next Hearing
14th July 2026
Filing Number
286/2021
Filing Date
25-05-2021
Registration No
55/2021
Registration Date
25-05-2021
Court
District and Session Court , Gondia
Judge
35-District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia
FIR Details
FIR Number
152
Police Station
Gondiya City
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra through PSO Gondia City
Adv. Pardhi Krushna D.
Respondent(s)
Tejas Yogesh Chandrikapure (POCSO) Advocate - Ahmed B.N.
Hearing History
Judge: 35-District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 11-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 29-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 10-10-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Bail Granted The District Judge allowed the bail application of Tejas Yogesh Chandrikapure, accused in a POCSO case involving charges under IPC Sections 363, 376(2)(i) and POCSO Act Sections 4 & 6. The court granted bail on executing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of Rs. 15,000, considering that trial had not commenced despite charges being framed, the accused was only 21 years old with dependents, and medical evidence did not indicate forceful sexual intercourse. The accused must not contact the victim, threaten witnesses, or fail to attend trial regularly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Bail Granted The District Judge allowed the bail application of Tejas Yogesh Chandrikapure, accused in a POCSO case involving charges under IPC Sections 363, 376(2)(i) and POCSO Act Sections 4 & 6. The court granted bail on executing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of Rs. 15,000, considering that trial had not commenced despite charges being framed, the accused was only 21 years old with dependents, and medical evidence did not indicate forceful sexual intercourse. The accused must not contact the victim, threaten witnesses, or fail to attend trial regularly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts