The State of Maharashtra Through Roha PSCR 148-2024 vs Sultan Shamshuddin Shaikh Advocate - Oak Rahul Prakash — 50/2024
Case under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3(1)(w)(i),3(1)(w)(ii),3(2),3(V),3(1)(r),3(1)(s). Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 06th May 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHRG150006122024
Next Hearing
06th May 2026
e-Filing Number
18-09-2024
Filing Number
262/2024
Filing Date
18-09-2024
Registration No
50/2024
Registration Date
18-09-2024
Court
District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon
Judge
2-District Judge 1 and Addl. Session Judge Mangaon
FIR Details
FIR Number
148
Police Station
Roha Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra Through Roha PSCR 148-2024
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Sultan Shamshuddin Shaikh 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 16-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: The bail application filed by the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been rejected. The court found the offences serious, involving sexual exploitation of a 14-year-old minor victim by a 24-year-old accused who induced her with false promises of marriage. The court determined there is substantial risk of witness intimidation and evidence tampering, particularly given the victim's family structure lacks a male protector. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The bail application filed by the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been rejected. The court found the offences serious, involving sexual exploitation of a 14-year-old minor victim by a 24-year-old accused who induced her with false promises of marriage. The court determined there is substantial risk of witness intimidation and evidence tampering, particularly given the victim's family structure lacks a male protector. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts