State Deola Police stn Nashik vs Ganesh Dilip Jadhav Advocate - Ugale Yogesh D. — 132/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 376,376(2)(f),376(2)(n),354(a)(2). Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 04th May 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHNS010032152024
Next Hearing
04th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1556/2024
Filing Date
02-05-2024
Registration No
132/2024
Registration Date
02-05-2024
Court
District and Sessions Court , Nashik
Judge
10-DISTRICT JUDGE-5 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
FIR Details
FIR Number
48
Police Station
DEOLA POLICE STATION
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Deola Police stn Nashik
Adv. App Sonawane Shailesh H
Respondent(s)
Ganesh Dilip Jadhav Advocate - Ugale Yogesh D.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 15-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
BAIL DENIED The Nashik Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application of Ganesh Dilip Jadhav, a 38-year-old government servant (Talathi), accused of sexually assaulting a 17½-year-old minor girl under IPC sections 363, 376, 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n) and POCSO Act sections 4, 6. The court found credible evidence of repeated forcible sexual relations, rejected the defense claim of consensual love affair citing the vast age gap and accused's marital status, and noted witness intimidation attempts by the accused's family. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
BAIL DENIED The Nashik Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application of Ganesh Dilip Jadhav, a 38-year-old government servant (Talathi), accused of sexually assaulting a 17½-year-old minor girl under IPC sections 363, 376, 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n) and POCSO Act sections 4, 6. The court found credible evidence of repeated forcible sexual relations, rejected the defense claim of consensual love affair citing the vast age gap and accused's marital status, and noted witness intimidation attempts by the accused's family. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts