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

Evidence

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

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 380,457

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

07-03-2026

Evidence

21-01-2026

Evidence

28-11-2025

Charge

08-10-2025

Charge

22-08-2025

Evidence

Interim Orders

31-07-2025
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court,Daund All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case