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.

Evidence Part Heard Next hearing 16-Apr-2026 this date has passed

Sessions Case

CNR: MHRG010004092025

Filing Number

124/2025

Filing Date

19-Apr-2025

Registration No

8/2025

Registration Date

19-Apr-2025

Court

District and Session Court Raigad

Judge

16-District Judge-2 And Addl.sessions Judge

Last updated 13-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

151

Police Station

Poynad Police Station

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 376(1), 376(2)(N), 506, 196

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra throu Poynad Police Station

    Adv. Pawar S. S.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Kunal Shrikant Thakur Advocate - Bangera A.S.

Case History

  1. 16-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Apr-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    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.

  3. 06-Apr-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  7. 07-Mar-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  8. 28-Feb-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  9. 07-Feb-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  10. 22-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  11. 08-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  12. 18-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  13. 01-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  14. 10-Nov-2025

    Formal Hearing

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  15. 16-Oct-2025

    Formal Hearing

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  16. 06-Oct-2025

    Charge

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  17. 29-Sep-2025

    Charge

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  18. 18-Sep-2025

    Charge

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  19. 21-Aug-2025

    Charge

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  20. 31-Jul-2025

    Charge

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  21. 14-Jul-2025

    Charge

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  22. 03-Jul-2025

    Charge

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  23. 19-Jun-2025

    Charge

    District Judge-3 And Addl.sessions Judge

  24. 13-May-2025

    Charge

    District Judge-2 And Addl.sessions Judge

  25. 19-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 19-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 8/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case