State of Maharashtra vs Vishal Ramesh Jadhav — 373/2025

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: MHLA120011592025

Filing Number

662/2025

Filing Date

21-Apr-2025

Registration No

373/2025

Registration Date

21-Apr-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

25

Police Station

Aurad Shahajani

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vishal Ramesh Jadhav

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case 373/2025 Summary The court discharged accused Vishal Ramesh Jadhav under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita in a Bombay Prohibition Act Section 65(e) case, as the accused could not be traced despite multiple summons and police efforts failed to apprehend him. The court found it futile to keep the matter pending without the accused's presence or receipt of the Competent Authority report, making continued proceedings purposeless. 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. 24-Feb-2026

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  5. 28-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  6. 18-Aug-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  7. 05-May-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 21-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 373/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case 373/2025 Summary The court discharged accused Vishal Ramesh Jadhav under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita in a Bombay Prohibition Act Section 65(e) case, as the accused could not be traced despite multiple summons and police efforts failed to apprehend him. The court found it futile to keep the matter pending without the accused's presence or receipt of the Competent Authority report, making continued proceedings purposeless. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case