The State of Maharashtra vs Mahadu Udal Maher @ Madhav Udalsing Maher Advocate - CHATE S. M. — 91/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 354A,354D,376(2)(N)(I),341,452,506. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.

Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)

CNR: MHJN010013672023

Evidence Part Heard

Next Hearing

17th June 2026

Filing Number

666/2023

Filing Date

13-04-2023

Registration No

91/2023

Registration Date

13-04-2023

Court

District and Session Court , Jalna

Judge

34-District Judge-4 and Addl.Sessions Judge

FIR Details

FIR Number

35

Police Station

Paradh

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 354A,354D,376(2)(N)(I),341,452,506
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Section 4,6,8,10,12

Petitioner(s)

The State of Maharashtra

Adv. MUKIM L.P.

Respondent(s)

Mahadu Udal Maher @ Madhav Udalsing Maher Advocate - CHATE S. M.

Karan Devsing Nimrot

Adv. JANJAL D M

Pawan Punam Chanda

Adv. MURME A.S.

Hearing History

Judge: 34-District Judge-4 and Addl.Sessions Judge

04-06-2026

Evidence Part Heard

30-05-2026

Evidence Part Heard

14-05-2026

Evidence Part Heard

24-04-2026

Evidence Part Heard

15-04-2026

Evidence Part Heard

Interim Orders

18-04-2023
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: Special Case No. 91/2023 Bail Application REJECTED. The accused's bail application in a sexual assault case involving a 15-year-old victim was dismissed. The court found the charges under IPC Sections 376(2)(i)-(n) and POCSO Act Section 6 are serious with stringent punishment, medical evidence supports the FIR, and the accused being a relative poses risk of witness intimidation given shared village residence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Special Case No. 91/2023 Bail Application REJECTED. The accused's bail application in a sexual assault case involving a 15-year-old victim was dismissed. The court found the charges under IPC Sections 376(2)(i)-(n) and POCSO Act Section 6 are serious with stringent punishment, medical evidence supports the FIR, and the accused being a relative poses risk of witness intimidation given shared village residence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Session Court , Jalna All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case