State of Maharashtra vs Anil Rangnath Kedar — 442/2025

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: MHSO200008492025

e-Filing Number

28-03-2025

Filing Number

651/2025

Filing Date

11-Apr-2025

Registration No

442/2025

Registration Date

11-Apr-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

39

Police Station

Sangola Police Station.

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. App

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Anil Rangnath Kedar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court discharged accused Anil Rangnath Kedar of charges under Section 65(ई) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and stopped proceedings under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, citing lack of progress, the accused's prolonged absence despite multiple opportunities, and the prosecution's failure to file the Chemical Analysis (C.A.) report essential to prove the seized substance was prohibited. 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. 09-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Summons

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

  5. 10-Dec-2025

    Awaiting Summons

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

  6. 17-Sep-2025

    Awaiting Summons

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

  7. 19-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 11-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 442/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court discharged accused Anil Rangnath Kedar of charges under Section 65(ई) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and stopped proceedings under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, citing lack of progress, the accused's prolonged absence despite multiple opportunities, and the prosecution's failure to file the Chemical Analysis (C.A.) report essential to prove the seized substance was prohibited. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case