State of Maharashtra vs Shankar Devidas Kshirsagar — 18149/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 285. Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHNG030293242025

e-Filing Number

29-09-2025

Filing Number

29321/2025

Filing Date

03-Oct-2025

Registration No

18149/2025

Registration Date

03-Oct-2025

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate , Nagpur

Judge

12-14th Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And JMFC Nagpur

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

Last updated 12-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

379

Police Station

Dhantoli

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 285

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. A.P.P.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shankar Devidas Kshirsagar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary: The Nagpur JMFC discharged the accused under Section 281 of the BNSS, 2023 in a case involving an offense under Section 285 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court stopped further proceedings and cancelled the bail bonds, citing that the case had been pending for years and the prosecution failed to secure the accused's presence despite sufficient opportunity, rendering continued proceedings purposeless. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    14th Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And JMFC Nagpur

  4. 09-Feb-2026

    Appearance

    14th Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And JMFC Nagpur

  5. 23-Dec-2025

    First Order

    14th Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And JMFC Nagpur

  6. 08-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 03-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 18149/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Nagpur JMFC discharged the accused under Section 281 of the BNSS, 2023 in a case involving an offense under Section 285 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court stopped further proceedings and cancelled the bail bonds, citing that the case had been pending for years and the prosecution failed to secure the accused's presence despite sufficient opportunity, rendering 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