The State Of Maharashtra Daund Police Station vs Laxman Baban Netake Advocate - Bansode Ajit Chandrakant — 223/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 376(2)n,f. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHPU140024442023
Next Hearing
07th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1308/2023
Filing Date
28-06-2023
Registration No
223/2023
Registration Date
02-08-2023
Court
Additional District Court, Baramati
Judge
10-ADHOC D.J. 1 AND ADJ BARAMATI DISTRICT PUNE.
FIR Details
FIR Number
360
Police Station
DAUND P.S.
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State Of Maharashtra Daund Police Station
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Laxman Baban Netake Advocate - Bansode Ajit Chandrakant
Surekha Laxman Netake
Adv. Londhe Mangesh Prabhakar
Hearing History
Judge: 10-ADHOC D.J. 1 AND ADJ BARAMATI DISTRICT PUNE.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 16-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary Bail Denied. The court rejected the regular bail application of Laxman Baban Netke, accused of raping his minor daughter (aged 17) multiple times, resulting in her pregnancy. The judge found the offences heinous, noted substantial risk of witness intimidation and victim endangerment, and cited the accused's residence outside court jurisdiction creating high absconding risk, distinguishing his case from co-accused No. 2 who received bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary Bail Denied. The court rejected the regular bail application of Laxman Baban Netke, accused of raping his minor daughter (aged 17) multiple times, resulting in her pregnancy. The judge found the offences heinous, noted substantial risk of witness intimidation and victim endangerment, and cited the accused's residence outside court jurisdiction creating high absconding risk, distinguishing his case from co-accused No. 2 who received bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts