The State of Maharashtra vs Gautam Sudam Kasare — 159/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 353,379,504,506,34. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHJN010032082024
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
1991/2024
Filing Date
15-11-2024
Registration No
159/2024
Registration Date
18-11-2024
Court
District and Session Court , Jalna
Judge
30-Adhoc District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge
FIR Details
FIR Number
302
Police Station
Jafrabad
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Gautam Sudam Kasare
Shankar Subhash Bhopale
Hearing History
Judge: 30-Adhoc District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-06-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 30-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 04-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 16-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Gautam Sudam Kasare & Shankar Subhash Bhopale (159/2024) Outcome: Petition DISMISSED The accused's petition seeking discharge under CrPC Section 227 was rejected. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence that the accused forcibly seized an illegally sand-laden tractor, threatened and assaulted the complainant (a government official), and obstructed official government work, thereby committing offenses under IPC Sections 353, 379, 504, 506, 34, and Minor Minerals Concession Rules. The chargesheet contained adequate evidence to proceed to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Gautam Sudam Kasare & Shankar Subhash Bhopale (159/2024) Outcome: Petition DISMISSED The accused's petition seeking discharge under CrPC Section 227 was rejected. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence that the accused forcibly seized an illegally sand-laden tractor, threatened and assaulted the complainant (a government official), and obstructed official government work, thereby committing offenses under IPC Sections 353, 379, 504, 506, 34, and Minor Minerals Concession Rules. The chargesheet contained adequate evidence to proceed to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts