The State of Maharashtra vs Kashim Rakamuddin Shaikh Advocate - ADHAV SURAJ DNYANDEV — 299/2024
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 137(2), 78. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHPU140031222024
Next Hearing
16th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1701/2024
Filing Date
21-09-2024
Registration No
299/2024
Registration Date
25-09-2024
Court
Additional District Court, Baramati
Judge
10-ADHOC D.J. 1 AND ADJ BARAMATI DISTRICT PUNE.
FIR Details
FIR Number
543
Police Station
DAUND P.S.
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
Kashim Rakamuddin Shaikh Advocate - ADHAV SURAJ DNYANDEV
Hearing History
Judge: 10-ADHOC D.J. 1 AND ADJ BARAMATI DISTRICT PUNE.
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 02-02-2026 | Hearing | |
| 17-01-2026 | Hearing | |
| 06-01-2026 | Hearing | |
| 23-12-2025 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
BAIL GRANTED The court allowed the bail application of accused Kasim Rakumuddin Shaikh in a POCSO Act case involving charges under BNS Sections 137(2), 78, and POCSO Section 12. The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000 with surety, subject to strict conditions including: non-contact with the victim (physically or virtually), regular court attendance, residence proof submission, and prohibition from entering the victim's village. The court found insufficient evidence of kidnapping or sexual assault, noting the victim's initial statement did not allege harassment by the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
BAIL GRANTED The court allowed the bail application of accused Kasim Rakumuddin Shaikh in a POCSO Act case involving charges under BNS Sections 137(2), 78, and POCSO Section 12. The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000 with surety, subject to strict conditions including: non-contact with the victim (physically or virtually), regular court attendance, residence proof submission, and prohibition from entering the victim's village. The court found insufficient evidence of kidnapping or sexual assault, noting the victim's initial statement did not allege harassment by the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts