State of Maharashtra vs Meena Ramesh Bhatya other 2 Advocate - Adv. Prashant Deshpande — 700301/2007

Case under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Section 345. Status: Dormant File. Next hearing: 02nd May 2026.

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHPU080015552007

Dormant File

Next Hearing

02nd May 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

701653/2008

Filing Date

31-12-2007

Registration No

700301/2007

Registration Date

31-12-2007

Court

Cantonment Court, Khadki

Judge

1-J.M.F.C. KHADKI CONTT.

FIR Details

FIR Number

3231

Police Station

BHOSARI POLICE CHOWKI DAPODI

Year

2007

Acts & Sections

PREVENTION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT Section 345

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra

Adv. A.P.P.

Respondent(s)

Meena Ramesh Bhatya other 2 Advocate - Adv. Prashant Deshpande

Manisha Sachin Patil

Jayshree Harish Khatri

Manisha Sachin Patil

Adv. Nalawade

Hearing History

Judge: 1-J.M.F.C. KHADKI CONTT.

02-04-2026

Dormant File

07-03-2026

Dormant File

16-02-2026

Dormant File

16-01-2026

Dormant File

17-12-2025

Dormant File

Interim Orders

12-05-2014
Copy of Judgment

Summary Accused Meena Ramesh Bhatiya and Jayashri Harish Khatri were acquitted of charges under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The court found insufficient evidence and credibility issues with the prosecution case, noting lack of independent witnesses, discrepancies in testimonies, and missing corroborating documentation. The case against the third accused, Manisha Sachin Patil (who remained absent), was ordered to proceed separately. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary Accused Meena Ramesh Bhatiya and Jayashri Harish Khatri were acquitted of charges under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The court found insufficient evidence and credibility issues with the prosecution case, noting lack of independent witnesses, discrepancies in testimonies, and missing corroborating documentation. The case against the third accused, Manisha Sachin Patil (who remained absent), was ordered to proceed separately. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Cantonment Court, Khadki All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case