State of Maharashtra vs Mohammad Ramjan Samsher Khan etc. 1 Advocate - Shaikh Samir Mahamad, Shaikh Rabiya Samir — 280/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,34. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 24th July 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 24-Jul-2026 this date has passed

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHSN030013832025

Filing Number

1383/2025

Filing Date

11-Apr-2025

Registration No

280/2025

Registration Date

15-Apr-2025

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli

Judge

5-Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

Last updated 13-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

45

Police Station

SANGLI CITY POLICE STATION SANGLI

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 420,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. Pakhali Shakil Mehabub, Nadaf R M, Pendhari Irfan Akbar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Mohammad Ramjan Samsher Khan etc. 1 Advocate - Shaikh Samir Mahamad, Shaikh Rabiya Samir

  2. 2.Mushtaq Samsher Khan(Absconding)

Case History

  1. 24-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 17-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  5. 12-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  6. 20-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  7. 15-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  8. 08-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  9. 30-Sep-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary - RCC No. 280/2025 The application for relaxation of bail conditions was partly allowed. The court relaxed the requirement for a "local solvent surety" to just a "local surety" for Rs.50,000, recognizing the accused's difficulty in furnishing a solvent surety. However, the court refused to relax the condition requiring residential addresses of three blood relatives, citing the large amount involved (Rs.46,93,000) and the accused being a non-local resident of Hyderabad. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  10. 30-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  11. 25-Sep-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  12. 25-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  13. 12-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  14. 02-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  15. 20-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  16. 07-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  17. 24-Jul-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  18. 16-Jul-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  19. 02-Jul-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  20. 20-Jun-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Vth Jt. CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Sangli

  21. 28-May-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    VIIth Jt CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC. Sangli

  22. 16-May-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    VIIth Jt CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC. Sangli

  23. 06-May-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  24. 06-May-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    VIIth Jt CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC. Sangli

  25. 05-May-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    VIIth Jt CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC. Sangli

  26. 02-May-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    VIIth Jt CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC. Sangli

  27. 30-Apr-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    VIIth Jt CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC. Sangli

  28. 28-Apr-2025

    Unready Board

    VIIth Jt CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC. Sangli

  29. 21-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 11-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 280/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary - RCC No. 280/2025 The application for relaxation of bail conditions was partly allowed. The court relaxed the requirement for a "local solvent surety" to just a "local surety" for Rs.50,000, recognizing the accused's difficulty in furnishing a solvent surety. However, the court refused to relax the condition requiring residential addresses of three blood relatives, citing the large amount involved (Rs.46,93,000) and the accused being a non-local resident of Hyderabad. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case