The State of Maharashtra through Alephata Police Station vs Rajendra Dagadu Gaikwad — 124/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 376-2-I,354,354-A,506. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.
Spl.Case Child Prot. - Spl.Case under POCSO Act
CNR: MHPU330011502025
Next Hearing
08th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
681/2025
Filing Date
09-03-2023
Registration No
124/2025
Registration Date
13-03-2023
Court
Additional District Court Junnar
Judge
1-Additional District and Sessions Court Junnar
FIR Details
FIR Number
391
Police Station
Alefata Police Station
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra through Alephata Police Station
Respondent(s)
Rajendra Dagadu Gaikwad
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Additional District and Sessions Court Junnar
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Awaiting Muddemal
Awaiting Muddemal
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 22-01-2026 | Awaiting Muddemal | |
| 08-01-2026 | Awaiting Muddemal |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: In Spl. Case (POCSO) No.124/2025, State vs. Rajendra Gaikwad, the court adjourned the matter for production of a videographed statement of the victim that was recorded by the investigating officer during FIR reduction. The court held that the defence cannot be caught off-guard by introduction of new evidence and directed the prosecution to provide the videographed statement to the defence. A notice was issued to the investigating officer regarding the suppression of this evidence from the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: In Spl. Case (POCSO) No.124/2025, State vs. Rajendra Gaikwad, the court adjourned the matter for production of a videographed statement of the victim that was recorded by the investigating officer during FIR reduction. The court held that the defence cannot be caught off-guard by introduction of new evidence and directed the prosecution to provide the videographed statement to the defence. A notice was issued to the investigating officer regarding the suppression of this evidence from the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts