State Satpur Police stn Nashik vs Vilas Jayram Borse Advocate - Shejwal Satish B. — 262/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109,351(2),351(3). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 10th March 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHNS010035262025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1628/2025
Filing Date
19-05-2025
Registration No
262/2025
Registration Date
19-05-2025
Court
District and Sessions Court , Nashik
Judge
4-DISTRICT JUDGE-7 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
42
Police Station
SATPUR POLICE STATION
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Satpur Police stn Nashik
Adv. Misar Ajay S.
Respondent(s)
Vilas Jayram Borse Advocate - Shejwal Satish B.
Hearing History
Judge: 4-DISTRICT JUDGE-7 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 04-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 02-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Vilas Jairam Borse of charges under BNS Sections 109 (attempt to murder) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation), and Bombay Police Act Section 135, finding insufficient direct evidence despite medical evidence of injuries. The court noted the complainant (production head) contradicted the FIR by testifying he had no employees and suffered injuries from a fall due to a fits condition, not assault, making corroborative medical evidence inadmissible without direct testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Vilas Jairam Borse of charges under BNS Sections 109 (attempt to murder) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation), and Bombay Police Act Section 135, finding insufficient direct evidence despite medical evidence of injuries. The court noted the complainant (production head) contradicted the FIR by testifying he had no employees and suffered injuries from a fall due to a fits condition, not assault, making corroborative medical evidence inadmissible without direct testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts