State of Maharashtra vs Hanamant Nagappa Itkar — 1110/2025

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: MHLA120029682025

Filing Number

1779/2025

Filing Date

10-Oct-2025

Registration No

1110/2025

Registration Date

10-Oct-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

210

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.Hanamant Nagappa Itkar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court discharged accused Hanamant Nagappa Itkar from liquor prohibition charges under Section 65(e)(f) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, invoking Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The discharge was ordered because despite multiple summons, the accused could not be traced, the investigating agency failed to apprehend him, the Chartered Accountant report remained pending, and further delay served no purpose. The court also cancelled bail bonds and ordered disposal of seized articles. 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. 30-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 10-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1110/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court discharged accused Hanamant Nagappa Itkar from liquor prohibition charges under Section 65(e)(f) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, invoking Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The discharge was ordered because despite multiple summons, the accused could not be traced, the investigating agency failed to apprehend him, the Chartered Accountant report remained pending, and further delay served no purpose. The court also cancelled bail bonds and ordered disposal of seized articles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case