The State of Maharashtra Hadapsar PStn vs Sandip Sambhaji Borade Advocate - Purohit Yashpal Dattaprasad — 181/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363,376(1). Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 11th April 2026.
Spl.Case Child Prot. - Spl.Case under POCSO Act
CNR: MHPU010067882019
Next Hearing
11th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
3732/2019
Filing Date
04-05-2019
Registration No
181/2019
Registration Date
15-05-2019
Court
District and Session Court ,Pune
Judge
12-DISTRICT JUDGE -8 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE
FIR Details
FIR Number
211
Police Station
Hadapsar Police Station
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra Hadapsar PStn
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Sandip Sambhaji Borade Advocate - Purohit Yashpal Dattaprasad
Hearing History
Judge: 12-DISTRICT JUDGE -8 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 21-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
BAIL DENIED The Pune Sessions Court rejected the bail application of Sandip Sambhaji Borade, accused under POCSO Act and IPC sections 363 and 376(1) for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old relative. Despite the chargesheet being filed, the court found the allegations serious with corroborating medical evidence and victim statements, and determined that the accused's age difference (37 years), familial relationship, and dominating position over the victim posed risks of witness intimidation and evidence tampering at this initial stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
BAIL DENIED The Pune Sessions Court rejected the bail application of Sandip Sambhaji Borade, accused under POCSO Act and IPC sections 363 and 376(1) for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old relative. Despite the chargesheet being filed, the court found the allegations serious with corroborating medical evidence and victim statements, and determined that the accused's age difference (37 years), familial relationship, and dominating position over the victim posed risks of witness intimidation and evidence tampering at this initial stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts