State of Maharashtra vs Arvind Raghunath Vhargule — 78/2025

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: MHLA120003412025

Filing Number

228/2025

Filing Date

06-Feb-2025

Registration No

78/2025

Registration Date

06-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

21

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.Arvind Raghunath Vhargule

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case 78/2025 Summary: The court discharged accused Arvind Raghunath Vhargule from charges under Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, invoking Section 281 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. The court found that despite multiple summons, the accused remained untraceable, the CA report was not received, and continuing the case served no purpose. The accused's bail bond was cancelled and seized materials were ordered disposed as per rules. 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. 22-Jan-2026

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  5. 29-Sep-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  6. 20-Jun-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  7. 20-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 06-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 78/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case 78/2025 Summary: The court discharged accused Arvind Raghunath Vhargule from charges under Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, invoking Section 281 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. The court found that despite multiple summons, the accused remained untraceable, the CA report was not received, and continuing the case served no purpose. The accused's bail bond was cancelled and seized materials were ordered disposed as per rules. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case