State of Maharashtra vs Gopal Shrirang Boyne — 2632/2024

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: MHLA120033432023

Filing Number

3343/2023

Filing Date

13-Dec-2023

Registration No

2632/2024

Registration Date

13-Dec-2023

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

331

Police Station

Nilanga

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Gopal Shrirang Boyne

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on Exhibit

    The court discharged accused Gopal Shrirang Boyne under Section 258 CrPC in a Bombay Prohibition Act case (Section 65(e)) because the accused could not be traced despite multiple summons, the CA report was not received, and further delay served no purpose. The accused's bail bonds were cancelled and seized materials disposed of as 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. 30-Dec-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  5. 20-Sep-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  6. 22-May-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  7. 25-Feb-2025

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  8. 13-Nov-2024

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  9. 28-Aug-2024

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  10. 20-May-2024

    Appearance

    2nd Jt. Cjjd JMFC Nilanga

  11. 05-Jan-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 13-Dec-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2632/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The court discharged accused Gopal Shrirang Boyne under Section 258 CrPC in a Bombay Prohibition Act case (Section 65(e)) because the accused could not be traced despite multiple summons, the CA report was not received, and further delay served no purpose. The accused's bail bonds were cancelled and seized materials disposed of as 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