State of Maharashtra vs Rohit Ramesh Mogarge — 8/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHLA120000842025

Filing Number

74/2025

Filing Date

13-Jan-2025

Registration No

8/2025

Registration Date

13-Jan-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Nilanga

Judge

2-2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

355

Police Station

Nilanga

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Rohit Ramesh Mogarge

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court stopped proceedings against accused Rohit Ramesh Mogarge under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023, and discharged him from charges under Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The court found that multiple summons went unserved, the investigating agency failed to locate the accused, the Complaint Report was not received, and continuing the case served no purpose. The accused's bail bonds were cancelled and seized contraband was ordered disposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  4. 09-Jan-2026

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  5. 23-Sep-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  6. 19-May-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  7. 27-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 13-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 8/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court stopped proceedings against accused Rohit Ramesh Mogarge under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023, and discharged him from charges under Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The court found that multiple summons went unserved, the investigating agency failed to locate the accused, the Complaint Report was not received, and continuing the case served no purpose. The accused's bail bonds were cancelled and seized contraband was ordered disposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case