State Of Maharashtra - Yavat Police Station vs Siddhu Rasiklal Chavan — 8/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 380,457. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHPU180031322024
Filing Number
2636/2024
Filing Date
30-Dec-2024
Registration No
8/2025
Registration Date
03-Jan-2025
Court
Civil Court,Daund
Judge
10-4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
Last updated 06-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
489
Police Station
YEWAT POLICE STATION
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State Of Maharashtra - Yavat Police Station
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Siddhu Rasiklal Chavan
-
2.Prashant @ Prasad Futya@ Bandu Kale
-
3.Babusha Gulab Kale
-
4.Hanumant Fotya @ Bandu Kale
-
5.Deepak Rasiklal Chvhan
Case History
-
17-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
07-Mar-2026
Evidence
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
21-Jan-2026
Evidence
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
28-Nov-2025
Charge
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
08-Oct-2025
Charge
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
22-Aug-2025
Evidence
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
14-Aug-2025
Evidence
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
31-Jul-2025
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Summary: Bail granted. The court allowed the bail application of three accused (Siddhu Rasiklal Chavan, Prashant Photya, and Babusha Gulab Kale) charged under IPC Sections 457 and 380 (burglary and theft), releasing them on personal recognizance bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with one month to furnish sureties. The court noted the charge sheet was filed, investigation completed, and continued detention was unjust given their inability to furnish surety, while imposing conditions against evidence tampering and criminal activity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
31-Jul-2025
Evidence
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
30-Jul-2025
Production of Accused
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
29-Jul-2025
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
29-Jul-2025
Production of Accused
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
24-Jul-2025
Production of Accused
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
23-Jul-2025
Production of Accused
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
09-Jul-2025
Production of Accused
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
25-Jun-2025
Production of Accused
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
11-Jun-2025
Production of Accused
4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
-
28-May-2025
Production of Accused
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
16-May-2025
Production of Accused
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
03-May-2025
Production of Accused
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
21-Apr-2025
Production of Accused
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
08-Apr-2025
Production of Accused
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
26-Mar-2025
Production of Accused
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
13-Mar-2025
Production of Accused
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
28-Feb-2025
Production of Accused
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
15-Feb-2025
Production of Accused
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
03-Feb-2025
Production of Accused
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
29-Jan-2025
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
29-Jan-2025
Production of Accused
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
28-Jan-2025
Argument on Exh.____Unready
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
24-Jan-2025
Production of Accused
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
10-Jan-2025
Production of Accused
2nd Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Daund
-
04-Jan-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Dec-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 8/2025
Summary: Bail granted. The court allowed the bail application of three accused (Siddhu Rasiklal Chavan, Prashant Photya, and Babusha Gulab Kale) charged under IPC Sections 457 and 380 (burglary and theft), releasing them on personal recognizance bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with one month to furnish sureties. The court noted the charge sheet was filed, investigation completed, and continued detention was unjust given their inability to furnish surety, while imposing conditions against evidence tampering and criminal activity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts