State Panchavati Police stn Nashik vs Pradeep Pralhad Chandrashekhar Advocate - Bhusal Dipak A — 14/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363,376(2)(n),366. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 08th May 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHNS010004342025
Next Hearing
08th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
165/2025
Filing Date
10-01-2025
Registration No
14/2025
Registration Date
10-01-2025
Court
District and Sessions Court , Nashik
Judge
10-DISTRICT JUDGE-5 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
FIR Details
FIR Number
324
Police Station
PANCHAVATI POLICE STATION
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Panchavati Police stn Nashik
Adv. App Sonawane Shailesh H
Respondent(s)
Pradeep Pralhad Chandrashekhar Advocate - Bhusal Dipak A
Hearing History
Judge: 10-DISTRICT JUDGE-5 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 02-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
BAIL DENIED The Special Judge rejected the bail application of Pradip Pralhad Chandrashekhar in a POCSO case involving charges of kidnapping and sexual assault of a 14-year-old minor. The court found that the accused, aged 27, repeatedly violated conditions of an earlier bail order and committed fresh aggravated sexual offences against the same victim, demonstrating a pattern of exploitation that warranted continued detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
BAIL DENIED The Special Judge rejected the bail application of Pradip Pralhad Chandrashekhar in a POCSO case involving charges of kidnapping and sexual assault of a 14-year-old minor. The court found that the accused, aged 27, repeatedly violated conditions of an earlier bail order and committed fresh aggravated sexual offences against the same victim, demonstrating a pattern of exploitation that warranted continued detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts