State of Maharashtra through Khed Police Station vs Sanjay Govind Khedekar etc. 2 Advocate - Sheth Sameer Sharad — 5/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 328,272,273,188,34,. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 30th April 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHRT040000372023
Next Hearing
30th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
23/2023
Filing Date
01-02-2023
Registration No
5/2023
Registration Date
01-02-2023
Court
District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Khed.
Judge
3-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Khed.
FIR Details
FIR Number
216
Police Station
Police Station Khed
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra through Khed Police Station
Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Sanjay Govind Khedekar etc. 2 Advocate - Sheth Sameer Sharad
Anil Yadav Harishankar Yadav
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Khed.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 17-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: Bail application of Santosh @ Donya Prabhakar Mahadik in a theft case (Crime No. 326 of 2022, involving alleged theft of machinery and equipment valued at Rs. 30 crores) was ALLOWED. The court found no substantive evidence of the applicant's key role in the alleged theft, noting only allegations on record and that the applicant was cooperating with police. Bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with conditions including alternate-day police reporting, no evidence tampering, and no contact with witnesses/complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: Bail application of Santosh @ Donya Prabhakar Mahadik in a theft case (Crime No. 326 of 2022, involving alleged theft of machinery and equipment valued at Rs. 30 crores) was ALLOWED. The court found no substantive evidence of the applicant's key role in the alleged theft, noting only allegations on record and that the applicant was cooperating with police. Bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with conditions including alternate-day police reporting, no evidence tampering, and no contact with witnesses/complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts