State of Maharashtra vs Abhishek Manjunath Mali — 91/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302,201,143,147,148,149,. Status: Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.. Next hearing: 15th May 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHKO010017192025
Next Hearing
15th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
714/2025
Filing Date
03-05-2025
Registration No
91/2025
Registration Date
05-05-2025
Court
District and Sessions Court , Kolhapur
Judge
7-District Judge-2 Kolhapur
FIR Details
FIR Number
772
Police Station
Police Station Juna Rajwada
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A. P. P.
Respondent(s)
Abhishek Manjunath Mali
Atul Subhash Shinde
Ajay Uraf Ravan Dagadu Shinde
Aakash Sanjay Mali Juvenail
Suraj Sanjay Mali Juvenail
Omkar Amar Mane Juvenail
Hearing History
Judge: 7-District Judge-2 Kolhapur
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 30-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 29-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 18-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: The successive bail application filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 (Abhishaikh Manjunath Mali and Atul Subhash Shinde) has been rejected. The court found that although the charge had not been framed at the time of the earlier bail rejection, the delay in evidence recording was not attributable to prosecution negligence but rather to procedural requirements. Considering the heinous nature of the offense (carrying maximum punishment), the circumstances including weapon recovery, and the prosecution's willingness to expeditiously complete the trial, the court deemed bail unsuitable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The successive bail application filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 (Abhishaikh Manjunath Mali and Atul Subhash Shinde) has been rejected. The court found that although the charge had not been framed at the time of the earlier bail rejection, the delay in evidence recording was not attributable to prosecution negligence but rather to procedural requirements. Considering the heinous nature of the offense (carrying maximum punishment), the circumstances including weapon recovery, and the prosecution's willingness to expeditiously complete the trial, the court deemed bail unsuitable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts