State of Maharashtra vs Swapanil Santosh Charapale Advocate - B. D. Rakhunde — 155/2020
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (amendment) Act, 1988 Section 8[c], 20. Status: Charge. Next hearing: 20th July 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHKO010022282020
Next Hearing
20th July 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1107/2020
Filing Date
28-08-2020
Registration No
155/2020
Registration Date
29-08-2020
Court
District and Sessions Court , Kolhapur
Judge
3-District Judge-3, Kolhapur.
FIR Details
FIR Number
226
Police Station
Police Station Gandhinagar
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A. P. P.
Respondent(s)
Swapanil Santosh Charapale Advocate - B. D. Rakhunde
Akshay Namdeo Patil
Suraj Sambhaji Patil
Washim Abdulsattar Bandar
Tukaram Sakharam Jagtap @ Matkari
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge-3, Kolhapur.
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Charge | |
| 21-11-2025 | Charge | |
| 28-08-2025 | Charge | |
| 20-05-2025 | Charge | |
| 27-02-2025 | Charge |
Interim Orders
Summary: The application for release of seized property under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was allowed partly. The court ordered release of the motorcycle (Registration No. MH-10-DE-1124) to the applicant on execution of an indemnity bond of Rs. 50,000, with conditions that he shall not alter its structure, alienate it, or use it for crime until case conclusion. However, the application for release of the Samsung mobile handset was rejected due to risk of evidence tampering and data destruction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The application for release of seized property under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was allowed partly. The court ordered release of the motorcycle (Registration No. MH-10-DE-1124) to the applicant on execution of an indemnity bond of Rs. 50,000, with conditions that he shall not alter its structure, alienate it, or use it for crime until case conclusion. However, the application for release of the Samsung mobile handset was rejected due to risk of evidence tampering and data destruction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts