State of Maharashtra through PSO Parseoni vs Rupesh Chintaman Kohde — 140/2024
Case under Foreigners Act Section 3,4,5. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
R.C.C. - Reg.Cri.Case
CNR: MHNG140006902024
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
Filing Number
608/2024
Filing Date
30-12-2024
Registration No
140/2024
Registration Date
30-12-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Parseoni
Judge
14-Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Parshioni.
FIR Details
FIR Number
87
Police Station
Parshioni
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra through PSO Parseoni
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
Rupesh Chintaman Kohde
Ramuji @Ramdas Gunderao Kakde
Hearing History
Judge: 14-Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Parshioni.
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 03-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 18-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This document is a court record of witness examination in a human trafficking case (Case No. 140/2024) from a Nagpur court, dated 14/10/2025. The witness, a Bangladeshi woman, testified about being trafficked to work in a hotel where she was allegedly forced into sex work, describing how she was recruited and brought to Itagav through intermediaries. During cross-examination, the witness retracted many of her statements, claiming she didn't remember key details and that the prosecution may have suggested certain facts to her during police interrogation, ultimately denying the alleged incidents occurred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document is a court record of witness examination in a human trafficking case (Case No. 140/2024) from a Nagpur court, dated 14/10/2025. The witness, a Bangladeshi woman, testified about being trafficked to work in a hotel where she was allegedly forced into sex work, describing how she was recruited and brought to Itagav through intermediaries. During cross-examination, the witness retracted many of her statements, claiming she didn't remember key details and that the prosecution may have suggested certain facts to her during police interrogation, ultimately denying the alleged incidents occurred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts