The State of Maharashtra vs Pratiksha Akash Shingare Advocate - LADC Chief Adv M R Waghunde — 109/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),238. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHJN010018842025
e-Filing Number
18-06-2025
Filing Number
1105/2025
Filing Date
17-Jul-2025
Registration No
109/2025
Registration Date
19-Jul-2025
Court
District and Session Court , Jalna
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
249
Police Station
Sadar Bazar Jalna.
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.The State of Maharashtra
Adv. जिल्हा सरकारी वकील बी. व्ही. इंगळे
Respondent(s)
-
1.Pratiksha Akash Shingare Advocate - LADC Chief Adv M R Waghunde
Case History
-
20-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
05-Jun-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
21-May-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
07-May-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
23-Apr-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
13-Apr-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
06-Apr-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
02-Apr-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
04-Mar-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
14-Feb-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
05-Feb-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
22-Jan-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
07-Jan-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Dec-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
26-Nov-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
14-Nov-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
03-Nov-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Oct-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
07-Oct-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
30-Sep-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
15-Sep-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Sep-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
02-Sep-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
13-Aug-2025
Evidence
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
02-Aug-2025
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 109/2025 Outcome: Bail application rejected. The court denied bail to the accused, Pratiksha Akash Shingare, charged with murder of her mother-in-law and evidence destruction under BNS sections 103(1) and 238. Despite being a first-time offender with no criminal history, the Sessions Judge found sufficient circumstantial evidence of complicity, including CCTV footage of a woman dragging a sack containing the deceased down stairs, blood-stained evidence in the locked house, and the fact that only the accused and deceased were residing there. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Aug-2025
Hearing Before Charge
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
31-Jul-2025
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
30-Jul-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
24-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 109/2025
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 109/2025 Outcome: Bail application rejected. The court denied bail to the accused, Pratiksha Akash Shingare, charged with murder of her mother-in-law and evidence destruction under BNS sections 103(1) and 238. Despite being a first-time offender with no criminal history, the Sessions Judge found sufficient circumstantial evidence of complicity, including CCTV footage of a woman dragging a sack containing the deceased down stairs, blood-stained evidence in the locked house, and the fact that only the accused and deceased were residing there. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts