State of Maharashtra vs Dildar Aabasaheb Hambirrao — 236/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHSO200006202025

e-Filing Number

18-03-2025

Filing Number

465/2025

Filing Date

18-Mar-2025

Registration No

236/2025

Registration Date

18-Mar-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Sangola

Judge

6-C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

773

Police Station

Sangola Police Station.

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. App

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Dildar Aabasaheb Hambirrao

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case 236/2025 Summary: The court stopped proceedings and discharged the accused Dildar Abasaheb Hambirrao of charges under Section 65(ई) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, citing lack of progress since case institution. Key reasons included the prosecution's failure to secure the accused's presence despite multiple opportunities and the absence of a Chemical Analysis (C.A.) report—essential to establish whether seized substance was prohibited—both before and after the charge-sheet filing. All bail bonds were canceled and any issued warrants recalled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.

  4. 11-Dec-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.

  5. 11-Jul-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.

  6. 19-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 18-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 236/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case 236/2025 Summary: The court stopped proceedings and discharged the accused Dildar Abasaheb Hambirrao of charges under Section 65(ई) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, citing lack of progress since case institution. Key reasons included the prosecution's failure to secure the accused's presence despite multiple opportunities and the absence of a Chemical Analysis (C.A.) report—essential to establish whether seized substance was prohibited—both before and after the charge-sheet filing. All bail bonds were canceled and any issued warrants recalled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case