State of Maharashtra vs Sattarmiya Rasul Shaikh — 143/2025

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: MHLA120005262025

Filing Number

323/2025

Filing Date

21-Feb-2025

Registration No

143/2025

Registration Date

21-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

101

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.Sattarmiya Rasul Shaikh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court discharged accused Sattarmiya Rasul Shaikh from charges under Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, invoking Section 281 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. The discharge was ordered due to the accused's inability to be traced despite multiple summons, failure to obtain the Complaint Authority report, and the impracticality of keeping the case pending. The accused's bail bonds were cancelled and seized materials disposed of 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. 20-Feb-2026

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  5. 17-Oct-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  6. 23-Jul-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  7. 10-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 21-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 143/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court discharged accused Sattarmiya Rasul Shaikh from charges under Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, invoking Section 281 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. The discharge was ordered due to the accused's inability to be traced despite multiple summons, failure to obtain the Complaint Authority report, and the impracticality of keeping the case pending. The accused's bail bonds were cancelled and seized materials disposed of 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