State of Maharashtra vs Nilesh Prakash Bune Advocate - A. A. BachePatil — 873/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 66(B). Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO170013172024
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
e-Filing Number
27-11-2024
Filing Number
1082/2024
Filing Date
27-11-2024
Registration No
873/2024
Registration Date
27-11-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Panhala
Judge
3-Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala
FIR Details
FIR Number
87
Police Station
Kodoli Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Nilesh Prakash Bune Advocate - A. A. BachePatil
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 27-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 20-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
This is a witness examination record (not a final court order) from Criminal Case No. 873/2024 regarding accused Nilesh Prakash Bune. The government witness (Santosh Ramesh Samudre) testified that the panchnama (seizure document) was not prepared in his presence and he did not sign it, contradicting the prosecution's claims about the alleged liquor seizure on 07.04.2024. The defense counsel cross-examined the witness, who admitted he had no information beyond the names in the panchnama document. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a witness examination record (not a final court order) from Criminal Case No. 873/2024 regarding accused Nilesh Prakash Bune. The government witness (Santosh Ramesh Samudre) testified that the panchnama (seizure document) was not prepared in his presence and he did not sign it, contradicting the prosecution's claims about the alleged liquor seizure on 07.04.2024. The defense counsel cross-examined the witness, who admitted he had no information beyond the names in the panchnama document. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts