Pune Municipal Corporation Through Shri Balasaheb Kushaba Dolas vs Shri Arvind lele chairman Advocate - Jadhav Sachin Tanajirao — 18/2025

Case under Maharashtra (urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 Section Section8(1)21(1). Status: Stayed by District Court. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHPU050000202025

Stayed by District Court

Next Hearing

28th April 2026

e-Filing Number

03-04-2025

Filing Number

20/2025

Filing Date

03-04-2025

Registration No

18/2025

Registration Date

03-04-2025

Court

Civil Court,Pmc

Judge

1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C. PMC PUNE

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 Section Section8(1)21(1)

Petitioner(s)

Pune Municipal Corporation Through Shri Balasaheb Kushaba Dolas

Adv. PATIL SHIVAJI JANARDHANRAO

Respondent(s)

Shri Arvind lele chairman Advocate - Jadhav Sachin Tanajirao

Hearing History

Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C. PMC PUNE

25-03-2026

Stayed by District Court

07-03-2026

Plea / Particulars

16-02-2026

Plea / Particulars

06-02-2026

B.W._Unready

31-01-2026

Appearance

Interim Orders

16-02-2026
Order on Exhibit

Summary: The Pune Judicial Magistrate First Class passed three orders on 16.02.2026: (1) canceled the bailable warrant against accused Arvind Lele subject to a Rs. 200/- penalty; (2) granted bail to the accused with personal and surety bonds of Rs. 15,000/- each; and (3) modified the bail to cash security of Rs. 5,000/- after the accused stated he had no surety available. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Pune Judicial Magistrate First Class passed three orders on 16.02.2026: (1) canceled the bailable warrant against accused Arvind Lele subject to a Rs. 200/- penalty; (2) granted bail to the accused with personal and surety bonds of Rs. 15,000/- each; and (3) modified the bail to cash security of Rs. 5,000/- after the accused stated he had no surety available. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Civil Court,Pmc All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case