State of Mah. through Police Station, Bhiwapur vs Sandip Arun Madankar And Others — 106/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379,109,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 05th May 2026.
R.C.C. - Reg.Cri.Case
CNR: MHNG170006522024
e-Filing Number
21-09-2024
Filing Number
586/2024
Filing Date
04-10-2024
Registration No
106/2024
Registration Date
04-10-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Bhiwapur
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. AND J.M.F.C.,BHIWAPUR
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
231
Police Station
Bhiwapur
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Mah. through Police Station, Bhiwapur
Adv. Adv. V. U. Mirche
Respondent(s)
Sandip Arun Madankar And Others
Rakesh Rameshji Gedam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. AND J.M.F.C.,BHIWAPUR
Disposed
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Disposed | |
| 13-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-04-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary In this criminal case from Bhiwapur, Maharashtra, the court acquitted defendant Rakesh Ramesh Gedam of charges under IPC Sections 379 (theft) and 109 (abetment), along with violations of the Public Property Damage Prevention Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as it relied primarily on the scene panchnama (inspection report) but the two independent witnesses (panchs) present at the site did not testify in support of the prosecution, and no independent eyewitnesses corroborated the allegations of illegal sand theft. Consequently, the defendant was acquitted and his bail bond was cancelled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary In this criminal case from Bhiwapur, Maharashtra, the court acquitted defendant Rakesh Ramesh Gedam of charges under IPC Sections 379 (theft) and 109 (abetment), along with violations of the Public Property Damage Prevention Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as it relied primarily on the scene panchnama (inspection report) but the two independent witnesses (panchs) present at the site did not testify in support of the prosecution, and no independent eyewitnesses corroborated the allegations of illegal sand theft. Consequently, the defendant was acquitted and his bail bond was cancelled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts