The State of Maharashtra Jejuri P.stn. vs Vasant Alias Bunty Sampat Shinde Advocate - In-Person — 476/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 452,354(A),(1)(i). Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.

Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)

CNR: MHPU010110522022

Evidence Part Heard

Next Hearing

17th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

6026/2022

Filing Date

22-06-2022

Registration No

476/2022

Registration Date

22-06-2022

Court

District and Session Court ,Pune

Judge

12-DISTRICT JUDGE -8 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE

FIR Details

FIR Number

151

Police Station

Jejuri Police Station

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 452,354(A),(1)(i)
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Section 11(i),12

Petitioner(s)

The State of Maharashtra Jejuri P.stn.

Adv. App

Respondent(s)

Vasant Alias Bunty Sampat Shinde Advocate - In-Person

Hearing History

Judge: 12-DISTRICT JUDGE -8 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE

04-04-2026

Evidence Part Heard

24-03-2026

Evidence Part Heard

20-03-2026

Evidence Part Heard

07-03-2026

Evidence Part Heard

21-02-2026

Evidence Part Heard

Interim Orders

17-06-2025
Order on Exhibit

Summary: The bail application filed by accused Vasant @ Bunty Shinde under Section 439 CrPC for offences under IPC Sections 452, 354-A(i) and POCSO Act Sections 11(1), 12 has been rejected. The court found that the victim was 10 years old at the time of the incident, there is specific evidence against the accused, and since the victim and accused are neighbors, there is risk of witness intimidation and evidence tampering. The application has been disposed of accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The bail application filed by accused Vasant @ Bunty Shinde under Section 439 CrPC for offences under IPC Sections 452, 354-A(i) and POCSO Act Sections 11(1), 12 has been rejected. The court found that the victim was 10 years old at the time of the incident, there is specific evidence against the accused, and since the victim and accused are neighbors, there is risk of witness intimidation and evidence tampering. The application has been disposed of accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Session Court ,Pune All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case