State Of Maharashtra vs Amar Pandurang Angthekar etc — 157/2026
Case under Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act Section 12(a). Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 04th July 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO170002312026
Next Hearing
04th July 2026
e-Filing Number
21-02-2026
Filing Number
195/2026
Filing Date
21-02-2026
Registration No
157/2026
Registration Date
21-02-2026
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Panhala
Judge
2-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala
FIR Details
FIR Number
14
Police Station
Panhala Police Station
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Of Maharashtra
Adv. Sumitra Suryabhan Garje
Respondent(s)
Amar Pandurang Angthekar etc
Ketan Krushnat Sawant
Hearing History
Judge: 2-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-05-2026 | Hearing |
| 13-05-2026 | Hearing |
| 08-05-2026 | Hearing |
| 04-05-2026 | Hearing |
| 06-04-2026 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State Of Maharashtra v/s Amar Pandurang Angthekar (157/2026) The application for release of a seized ITEL mobile phone (valued at Rs.7,000) was allowed. The court found the applicant to be the rightful owner based on submitted receipt and Aadhar card, rejecting the IO's objection that release might facilitate future offences. The mobile was ordered released upon execution of an indemnity bond of Rs.7,000, with conditions: applicant cannot sell or alter the device during trial, must produce it as required by court, and the IO must photograph it for the chargesheet. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State Of Maharashtra v/s Amar Pandurang Angthekar (157/2026) The application for release of a seized ITEL mobile phone (valued at Rs.7,000) was allowed. The court found the applicant to be the rightful owner based on submitted receipt and Aadhar card, rejecting the IO's objection that release might facilitate future offences. The mobile was ordered released upon execution of an indemnity bond of Rs.7,000, with conditions: applicant cannot sell or alter the device during trial, must produce it as required by court, and the IO must photograph it for the chargesheet. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts