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
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2636/2024
Filing Date
30-12-2024
Registration No
8/2025
Registration Date
03-01-2025
Court
Civil Court,Daund
Judge
10-4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
FIR Details
FIR Number
489
Police Station
YEWAT POLICE STATION
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Of Maharashtra - Yavat Police Station
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Siddhu Rasiklal Chavan
Prashant @ Prasad Futya@ Bandu Kale
Babusha Gulab Kale
Hanumant Fotya @ Bandu Kale
Deepak Rasiklal Chvhan
Hearing History
Judge: 10-4th Joint C J J D And J M F C Daund
Evidence
Evidence
Charge
Charge
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 21-01-2026 | Evidence | |
| 28-11-2025 | Charge | |
| 08-10-2025 | Charge | |
| 22-08-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts