State Bhadrakali Police stn Nashik vs Soni @ Rani @ Aruna Baban Khicchi Advocate - Pund Atul A. — 187/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363,366(a),370,376(i)(n),506,34. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 02nd May 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHNS010025582021
Next Hearing
02nd May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1363/2021
Filing Date
07-06-2021
Registration No
187/2021
Registration Date
07-06-2021
Court
District and Sessions Court , Nashik
Judge
4-DISTRICT JUDGE-7 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
FIR Details
FIR Number
96
Police Station
BHADRAKALI POLICE STATION
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Bhadrakali Police stn Nashik
Adv. Bagale A.P.
Respondent(s)
Soni @ Rani @ Aruna Baban Khicchi Advocate - Pund Atul A.
Hearing History
Judge: 4-DISTRICT JUDGE-7 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 02-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 23-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 02-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The court rejected two prosecution applications seeking to produce school leaving certificates of two minor victims as additional evidence in a POCSO case after trial had substantially progressed. The Special Judge held that since charges were already framed, eleven prosecution witnesses examined (including the investigating officer), and the accused had begun his defence with cross-examination on the victims' dates of birth, allowing these documents at the "fag end of trial" would prejudice the accused and constitute a de-novo trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The court rejected two prosecution applications seeking to produce school leaving certificates of two minor victims as additional evidence in a POCSO case after trial had substantially progressed. The Special Judge held that since charges were already framed, eleven prosecution witnesses examined (including the investigating officer), and the accused had begun his defence with cross-examination on the victims' dates of birth, allowing these documents at the "fag end of trial" would prejudice the accused and constitute a de-novo trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts