State of Maharashtra vs Ranjeet Halke Safelkar — 107/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 386,448,420,323,504,506(b),34. Status: Production of Accused. Next hearing: 20th May 2026.
R.C.C. - Reg.Cri.Case
CNR: MHNG080009202021
Next Hearing
20th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
814/2021
Filing Date
07-06-2021
Registration No
107/2021
Registration Date
07-06-2021
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Kamptee
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C
FIR Details
FIR Number
103
Police Station
old Kamptee
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Ranjeet Halke Safelkar
Sharad @ Kalu Narayan Hate
Bharat Narayan Hate
Jitendra @ Jitu Prataproy Katariya
Adv. A. D. Bhimte
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C
Production of Accused
Production of Accused
Production of Accused
Production of Accused
Production of Accused
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Production of Accused | |
| 24-04-2026 | Production of Accused | |
| 13-04-2026 | Production of Accused | |
| 02-04-2026 | Production of Accused | |
| 20-03-2026 | Production of Accused |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCC No. 107/2021 Outcome: Bail Application Rejected Accused No. 4 Jitendra Katariya's bail application was rejected by the JMFC Court, Kamptee on 25/06/2021. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence of extortion involving ₹50 lakh demand and ₹10 lakh received from the complainant using weapons. Despite the accused having no criminal antecedents, the court determined that risk of evidence tampering and absconding was substantial, particularly given the serious nature of offences and that co-accused are habitual offenders involved in MCOCA offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCC No. 107/2021 Outcome: Bail Application Rejected Accused No. 4 Jitendra Katariya's bail application was rejected by the JMFC Court, Kamptee on 25/06/2021. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence of extortion involving ₹50 lakh demand and ₹10 lakh received from the complainant using weapons. Despite the accused having no criminal antecedents, the court determined that risk of evidence tampering and absconding was substantial, particularly given the serious nature of offences and that co-accused are habitual offenders involved in MCOCA offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts