State of Maharashtra vs Sandip Vilas Nerdar — 68/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 307,120B,327,341,143,147,149,427. Status: Charge. Next hearing: 24th July 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHKO010012562024
Next Hearing
24th July 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
576/2024
Filing Date
26-03-2024
Registration No
68/2024
Registration Date
27-03-2024
Court
District and Sessions Court , Kolhapur
Judge
3-District Judge-3, Kolhapur.
FIR Details
FIR Number
10
Police Station
Police Station Shahupuri
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A. P. P.
Respondent(s)
Sandip Vilas Nerdar
Babalu Alias Prasnnkumar Vishwasrao Nejdar
Yuvraj Bajirao Ulape
Nishikant Kisan Kamble
Dhanaji Balaso Godase
Pravin Vishwas Nejdar
Tushar Tukaram Nejdar
Kaustubh Alias Pushkraj Kamlakar Nejdar
Ajit Vilasrao Powar
Suhas Shivaji Namdev Ambi
Anant Hari Patil
Shreeprasad Sanjay Varale
Pravin Baburao Chougule
Dip Sunil Kondekar
Pappu Alias Prabhul Kamlakar Nejdar
Kunal Shivaji Nejdar
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge-3, Kolhapur.
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Charge | |
| 12-12-2025 | Charge | |
| 26-09-2025 | Charge | |
| 05-07-2025 | Charge | |
| 15-03-2025 | Charge |
Interim Orders
Summary: The application for interim custody of a seized Redmi mobile phone was allowed. Deep Sunil Kondekar was granted custody of the device on a Rs. 15,000 bond (Suprutnama), subject to conditions including data copying under panchnama, prohibition on material alterations or disposal without court permission, and production of the phone as directed. The court found that copying relevant data onto removable devices would serve trial purposes without requiring custody of the phone itself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The application for interim custody of a seized Redmi mobile phone was allowed. Deep Sunil Kondekar was granted custody of the device on a Rs. 15,000 bond (Suprutnama), subject to conditions including data copying under panchnama, prohibition on material alterations or disposal without court permission, and production of the phone as directed. The court found that copying relevant data onto removable devices would serve trial purposes without requiring custody of the phone itself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts