The State of Maharashtra CBI ACB P Stn vs Ajit Kamlakar Gokhale etc Advocate - Adv. Milind Patil — 44/2017
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 120B,420,465,467,471. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.
Spl.Case ACB - Special Case under Prevention of Corruption Act
CNR: MHPU010123822017
Next Hearing
20th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
6298/2017
Filing Date
28-09-2017
Registration No
44/2017
Registration Date
04-10-2017
Court
District and Session Court ,Pune
Judge
3-DISTRICT JUDGE -14 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE
FIR Details
FIR Number
15
Police Station
C. B. I.
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra CBI ACB P Stn
Adv. Prakash Kumar Soni
Respondent(s)
Ajit Kamlakar Gokhale etc Advocate - Adv. Milind Patil
Rina Nitin Kale
Adv. Adv. Rahul Deshpande
Avinash Popat Shinde
Adv. Adv. Rahul Deshpande
Alhad Shridhar Mahajan
Adv. Shri. Londhe
Shrikant A. Dhamane
Adv. Adv. Rahul Deshpande
Nitin Marutirao Kale
Adv. Adv. Rahul Deshpande
M/s Ishwari Enterprises
Adv. Adv. Rahul Deshpande
Hearing History
Judge: 3-DISTRICT JUDGE -14 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 12-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: The case (CBI vs. Ajit Gokhale and Ors., Special Case ACB No.44/2017) was adjourned to the next date. Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 7 sought adjournment to challenge a prior court order and file an application under Section 91 of CrPC. Though the Public Prosecutor opposed the adjournment, the court granted it as a "last chance" in the interest of justice, requiring witness compensation (Bhatta) of Rs. 3,000 to be paid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The case (CBI vs. Ajit Gokhale and Ors., Special Case ACB No.44/2017) was adjourned to the next date. Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 7 sought adjournment to challenge a prior court order and file an application under Section 91 of CrPC. Though the Public Prosecutor opposed the adjournment, the court granted it as a "last chance" in the interest of justice, requiring witness compensation (Bhatta) of Rs. 3,000 to be paid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts