State of Maharashtra vs Rahul Suryakant Bansode — 2304/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65e. Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 13th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHLA120030502024
Filing Number
3049/2024
Filing Date
13-Nov-2024
Registration No
2304/2024
Registration Date
14-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
163
Police Station
Excise Department, Latur
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Rahul Suryakant Bansode
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Rahul Suryakant Bansode (2304/2024) The court discharged accused Rahul Suryakant Bansode under Section 281 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita in a liquor prohibition case (Section 65(e), Bombay Prohibition Act). The magistrate found it improperly to keep the case pending due to the accused's repeated non-appearance despite multiple summons, police failure to apprehend him, and non-receipt of the CA report. 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.
-
13-Mar-2026
Disposed
2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga
-
20-Feb-2026
Appearance
2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga
-
12-Dec-2025
Appearance
2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga
-
14-Nov-2025
Appearance
2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga
-
14-Aug-2025
Appearance
2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga
-
26-Mar-2025
Appearance
2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga
-
28-Nov-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Nov-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 2304/2024
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Rahul Suryakant Bansode (2304/2024) The court discharged accused Rahul Suryakant Bansode under Section 281 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita in a liquor prohibition case (Section 65(e), Bombay Prohibition Act). The magistrate found it improperly to keep the case pending due to the accused's repeated non-appearance despite multiple summons, police failure to apprehend him, and non-receipt of the CA report. 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