State of Maharashtra throu Poynad Police Station vs Kunal Shrikant Thakur Advocate - Bangera A.S. — 8/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 376(1), 376(2)(N), 506, 196. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHRG010004092025
Next Hearing
16th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
124/2025
Filing Date
19-04-2025
Registration No
8/2025
Registration Date
19-04-2025
Court
District and Session Court Raigad
Judge
16-DISTRICT JUDGE-2 AND ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
FIR Details
FIR Number
151
Police Station
Poynad Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra throu Poynad Police Station
Adv. Pawar S. S.
Respondent(s)
Kunal Shrikant Thakur Advocate - Bangera A.S.
Hearing History
Judge: 16-DISTRICT JUDGE-2 AND ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the prosecution's application under Section 311 CrPC to recall the prosecutrix (PW-1) for the limited purpose of identifying her signatures and entries in a hotel register from Hotel Panchratna, which corroborates her testimony about being present with the accused. The court rejected the accused's objection that this amounted to filling lacunae in the prosecution case, finding it was merely curing a procedural omission/inadvertence. The accused retains full cross-examination rights, and the document's final admissibility will be determined during evidence appreciation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the prosecution's application under Section 311 CrPC to recall the prosecutrix (PW-1) for the limited purpose of identifying her signatures and entries in a hotel register from Hotel Panchratna, which corroborates her testimony about being present with the accused. The court rejected the accused's objection that this amounted to filling lacunae in the prosecution case, finding it was merely curing a procedural omission/inadvertence. The accused retains full cross-examination rights, and the document's final admissibility will be determined during evidence appreciation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts