State of Mah. through Police Station, Bhiwapur vs Anil Surabhi Solanki — 368/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHNG170005622025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

01-07-2025

Filing Number

526/2025

Filing Date

08-07-2025

Registration No

368/2025

Registration Date

09-07-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Bhiwapur

Judge

1-CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. AND J.M.F.C.,BHIWAPUR

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

289

Police Station

Bhiwapur

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

State of Mah. through Police Station, Bhiwapur

Adv. Adv. S. S. More

Respondent(s)

Anil Surabhi Solanki

Hearing History

Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. AND J.M.F.C.,BHIWAPUR

12-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

23-02-2026

Evidence Part Heard

12-02-2026

Evidence Part Heard

02-02-2026

Evidence Part Heard

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The court acquitted the accused Anil Solki under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), finding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Although a chemical report confirmed the seized bottles contained country-made liquor, the prosecution could not prove through credible witness testimony that the accused was in possession of the liquor or that the seizure was conducted properly with authorized panch (witness) support, creating sufficient doubt about the evidence chain. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

06-01-2026
Evidence
17-01-2026
Evidence
09-03-2026
Evidence
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the accused Anil Solki under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), finding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Although a chemical report confirmed the seized bottles contained country-made liquor, the prosecution could not prove through credible witness testimony that the accused was in possession of the liquor or that the seizure was conducted properly with authorized panch (witness) support, creating sufficient doubt about the evidence chain. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Bhiwapur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case