The State vs Pandurang Santya Hilam Advocate - Oak Rahul Prakash — 25/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 323,302. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 13th May 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHRG150001642022
Next Hearing
13th May 2026
e-Filing Number
23-03-2022
Filing Number
103/2022
Filing Date
30-03-2022
Registration No
25/2022
Registration Date
30-03-2022
Court
District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon
Judge
2-District Judge 1 and Addl. Session Judge Mangaon
FIR Details
FIR Number
266
Police Station
Mangaon Police Stn.
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Pandurang Santya Hilam Advocate - Oak Rahul Prakash
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Judge 1 and Addl. Session Judge Mangaon
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 27-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
This document is a witness deposition, not a court order with a substantive ruling. Witness Manohar Bapu Kamble testified in Sessions Case No. 25/2022 regarding the seizure of blood-stained clothes from the accused on 23.12.2021, which he authenticated in court. The cross-examination raised procedural concerns about the panchanama (seizure record), including lack of attestation to the accused's thumb impression and photograph date discrepancies, though the witness maintained the accuracy of his testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document is a witness deposition, not a court order with a substantive ruling. Witness Manohar Bapu Kamble testified in Sessions Case No. 25/2022 regarding the seizure of blood-stained clothes from the accused on 23.12.2021, which he authenticated in court. The cross-examination raised procedural concerns about the panchanama (seizure record), including lack of attestation to the accused's thumb impression and photograph date discrepancies, though the witness maintained the accuracy of his testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts