State of Maharashtra vs Suresh Ganpati Hanbar — 3774/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 05th May 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO050066562024
Filing Number
4655/2024
Filing Date
17-Dec-2024
Registration No
3774/2024
Registration Date
21-Dec-2024
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Ichalkaranji
Judge
7-4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji
Decision Date
05-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
-
1.Suresh Ganpati Hanbar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-May-2026
Copy of Judgment
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Ganpati Hanbar (3774/2024) The court acquitted respondent Suresh Ganpati Hanbar of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(E), finding insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while illicit liquor and materials were seized, the prosecution failed to establish direct, circumstantial, or presumptive evidence definitively linking the respondent to the alleged offense. The court ordered release of seized materials to the State Excise Department and imposed a personal bond of Rs. 5,000 as per CrPC Section 437-A. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-May-2026
Disposed
4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji
-
16-Mar-2026
Evidence Part Heard
4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji
-
21-Nov-2025
Appearance
4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji
-
25-Aug-2025
Appearance
4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji
-
08-May-2025
Appearance
4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji
-
21-Dec-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Dec-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 3774/2024
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Ganpati Hanbar (3774/2024) The court acquitted respondent Suresh Ganpati Hanbar of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(E), finding insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while illicit liquor and materials were seized, the prosecution failed to establish direct, circumstantial, or presumptive evidence definitively linking the respondent to the alleged offense. The court ordered release of seized materials to the State Excise Department and imposed a personal bond of Rs. 5,000 as per CrPC Section 437-A. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts