State of Maharashtra vs Suraj Chudaman Wadibhasme Advocate - s. 299 crpc — 131/2016

Case under Animal Preservation Act ( Maharashtra ) Section 5(a),(1)(2). Disposed: Uncontested--DISCHARGED on 10th March 2026.

R.C.C. - Reg.Cri.Case

CNR: MHNG080036252015

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

525/2016

Filing Date

12-10-2016

Registration No

131/2016

Registration Date

12-10-2016

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Kamptee

Judge

2-Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISCHARGED

FIR Details

FIR Number

3058

Police Station

Kamptee

Year

2015

Acts & Sections

Animal Preservation Act ( Maharashtra ) Section 5(a),(1)(2)
Prevention Of Cruelty to Animal Act Section 11(1),(d)

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra

Respondent(s)

Suraj Chudaman Wadibhasme Advocate - s. 299 crpc

Nasim Kasai

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C

10-03-2026

Disposed

26-02-2026

Evidence

13-01-2026

Evidence

11-12-2025

Evidence

21-11-2025

Order

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

The court discharged the accused in this animal cruelty case under Sections 5(A)(1)(2) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act and 11(1)(D) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, citing that the accused had been absconding for over 9 years since 2016 and key witnesses (informant, panch witnesses, investigating officer) could not be traced. The court found insufficient incriminating evidence to frame charges due to the unavailability of witnesses and no likelihood of the accused's appearance in the foreseeable future. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court discharged the accused in this animal cruelty case under Sections 5(A)(1)(2) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act and 11(1)(D) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, citing that the accused had been absconding for over 9 years since 2016 and key witnesses (informant, panch witnesses, investigating officer) could not be traced. The court found insufficient incriminating evidence to frame charges due to the unavailability of witnesses and no likelihood of the accused's appearance in the foreseeable future. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Kamptee All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case