State of Maharashtra vs Shakeel alias Sajan Valimahamad Shaikh and other 3 Advocate - Pathan Aref J — 11/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 307,324,323,504,34. Status: Admission and Denial. Next hearing: 02nd July 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHLA010003032023
Next Hearing
02nd July 2026
Filing Number
125/2023
Filing Date
02-02-2023
Registration No
11/2023
Registration Date
02-02-2023
Court
District and Sessions Court , Latur
Judge
3-District Judge 2nd Latur
FIR Details
FIR Number
562
Police Station
Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. District Govt. Pleader
Respondent(s)
Shakeel alias Sajan Valimahamad Shaikh and other 3 Advocate - Pathan Aref J
Jameer alias Jammu Valimahamad Shaikh
Adv. Pathan Aref J
Sameer Valimahamad Shaikh
Adv. Pathan Aref J
Hakani s/o Turab Shaikh
Adv. Pathan Aref J
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge 2nd Latur
Admission and Denial
Admission and Denial
Admission and Denial
Admission and Denial
Charge
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Admission and Denial |
| 10-04-2026 | Admission and Denial |
| 13-03-2026 | Admission and Denial |
| 16-02-2026 | Admission and Denial |
| 02-02-2026 | Charge |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra vs. Shakeel alias Sajan Valimahamad Shaikh & Others (Sessions Case 11/2023) The court found that the charge framed against the accused was defectively worded and omitted charges under Section 326 IPC, Section 4 R/w. 25 Indian Arms Act, and Section 37(1)(3) under Section 135 Maharashtra Police Act, despite these being attracted by the FIR allegations. The court ordered the charge to be amended and additional charges to be framed under the aforementioned sections, noting that while charges can be added under Section 216 Cr.P.C., they cannot be deleted once framed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra vs. Shakeel alias Sajan Valimahamad Shaikh & Others (Sessions Case 11/2023) The court found that the charge framed against the accused was defectively worded and omitted charges under Section 326 IPC, Section 4 R/w. 25 Indian Arms Act, and Section 37(1)(3) under Section 135 Maharashtra Police Act, despite these being attracted by the FIR allegations. The court ordered the charge to be amended and additional charges to be framed under the aforementioned sections, noting that while charges can be added under Section 216 Cr.P.C., they cannot be deleted once 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