State of Maharashtra vs Sachin Ramchandra Yadav Advocate - Bavchikar Umesh Kallappa — 47/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(2),64(2)(F).64(2)(J),64(2)(M),65(2),351(2),351(3). Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 13th April 2026.

Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)

CNR: MHSN170007302025

Hearing

Next Hearing

13th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

342/2025

Filing Date

17-07-2025

Registration No

47/2025

Registration Date

17-07-2025

Court

District and Additional Sessions Court, Vita

Judge

1-District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge

FIR Details

FIR Number

81

Police Station

Palus

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(2),64(2)(F).64(2)(J),64(2)(M),65(2),351(2),351(3)
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Section 4(2),5(L)(M)(N),6,8,10,

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra

Adv. Gramopadhye Makarand Hanmant

Respondent(s)

Sachin Ramchandra Yadav Advocate - Bavchikar Umesh Kallappa

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge

23-03-2026

Hearing

07-03-2026

Hearing

13-02-2026

Hearing

23-01-2026

Hearing

26-12-2025

Hearing

Interim Orders

24-09-2025
Order on Exhibit

SUMMARY The bail application of Sachin Ramchandra Yadav, accused of sexually abusing his 10-year-old daughter under BNS sections 64(2), 65(2), 351(2), 351(3) and POCSO Act sections 4(2), 5(l), 5(m), 5(n), 6, 8, 10, was rejected and dismissed. The Additional Sessions Judge found sufficient evidence including medical findings of physical injuries, nail scratches, and consistent statements from the victim and informant under section 183 BNSS, and considered the grave nature of the offense, tender age of the victim, and risk of witness tampering as grounds to deny bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The bail application of Sachin Ramchandra Yadav, accused of sexually abusing his 10-year-old daughter under BNS sections 64(2), 65(2), 351(2), 351(3) and POCSO Act sections 4(2), 5(l), 5(m), 5(n), 6, 8, 10, was rejected and dismissed. The Additional Sessions Judge found sufficient evidence including medical findings of physical injuries, nail scratches, and consistent statements from the victim and informant under section 183 BNSS, and considered the grave nature of the offense, tender age of the victim, and risk of witness tampering as grounds to deny bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Additional Sessions Court, Vita All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case