State of Maharashtra vs Madhav Rohidas Nitanware — 60/2025

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

Case disposed

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

CNR: MHLA120002742025

Filing Number

202/2025

Filing Date

03-Feb-2025

Registration No

60/2025

Registration Date

03-Feb-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

43

Police Station

Excise Department, Latur

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65E

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Madhav Rohidas Nitanware

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: S.C.C. No. 60/2025 The court discharged accused Madhav Rohidas Nitanware in a Bombay Prohibition Act Section 65(e) case, invoking Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023. The discharge was warranted because multiple summons failed to locate the accused, the Constable's report remained unreceived, and continuing the case served no purpose. The bail bonds were cancelled and seized materials disposed of accordingly. 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. 12-Jan-2026

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  5. 25-Sep-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  6. 17-Jun-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  7. 17-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 03-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 60/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: S.C.C. No. 60/2025 The court discharged accused Madhav Rohidas Nitanware in a Bombay Prohibition Act Section 65(e) case, invoking Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023. The discharge was warranted because multiple summons failed to locate the accused, the Constable's report remained unreceived, and continuing the case served no purpose. The bail bonds were cancelled and seized materials disposed of accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case