State of Maharashtra vs Ashok Kalappa Chougale Advocate - S. M. Patil — 1225/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 354,504,506,. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO030041402020
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
4345/2020
Filing Date
08-07-2020
Registration No
1225/2020
Registration Date
09-07-2020
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Kolhapur
Judge
4-14th Jt. CJJD and JMFC Kolhapur
FIR Details
FIR Number
296
Police Station
Laxmipuri Police Station
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A. P. P.
Respondent(s)
Ashok Kalappa Chougale Advocate - S. M. Patil
Amit Ashok Chougale
Adv. Sudhakar M. Patil
Vijayalaxmi Ashok Chougale
Adv. Sudhakar M. Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 4-14th Jt. CJJD and JMFC Kolhapur
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 03-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 06-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 27-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary The accused's application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking production of CCTV footage was rejected. The court held that since the application was filed at the pre-charge stage and the CCTV footage is essential for the accused's defense (which is irrelevant before framing of charge), the application was premature and not maintainable. The court cited settled law that an accused's entitlement to seek production orders ordinarily arises only at the defense stage, not before charge is framed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The accused's application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking production of CCTV footage was rejected. The court held that since the application was filed at the pre-charge stage and the CCTV footage is essential for the accused's defense (which is irrelevant before framing of charge), the application was premature and not maintainable. The court cited settled law that an accused's entitlement to seek production orders ordinarily arises only at the defense stage, not before charge is framed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts