State of Maharashtra vs Prashant Umakant Kamble — 2268/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 68,84. Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 13th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHLA120029802024
Filing Number
2975/2024
Filing Date
11-Nov-2024
Registration No
2268/2024
Registration Date
11-Nov-2024
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
214
Police Station
Excise Department, Udgir
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Prashant Umakant Kamble
-
2.Dhanraj Raosaheb Sonvane
-
3.Balaji Bhagwat Kshirsagar
-
4.Yuvraj Govindrao Sonwane
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The court stopped proceedings and discharged the accused (Prashant Umakant Kamble, Dhanraj Raosaheb Sonvane, and Balaji Bhagwat Kshirsagar) under Section 281 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita in a prohibition case (Sections 68 & 84 of Bombay Prohibition Act) because the accused could not be traced despite multiple summons and the CA report was not received. The court found no purpose in keeping the matter pending and cancelled their bail bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Mar-2026
Disposed
2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga
-
17-Jan-2026
Appearance
2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga
-
10-Oct-2025
Appearance
2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga
-
11-Aug-2025
Appearance
2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga
-
10-May-2025
Appearance
2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga
-
19-Mar-2025
Appearance
2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga
-
25-Nov-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Nov-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 2268/2024
The court stopped proceedings and discharged the accused (Prashant Umakant Kamble, Dhanraj Raosaheb Sonvane, and Balaji Bhagwat Kshirsagar) under Section 281 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita in a prohibition case (Sections 68 & 84 of Bombay Prohibition Act) because the accused could not be traced despite multiple summons and the CA report was not received. The court found no purpose in keeping the matter pending and cancelled their bail bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts