State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station, Kharangna vs Aanaji alias Maroti Lakshman Shendare Advocate - LADC Adv. Verma D.M., LADC Adv. Verma D.M. — 89/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 96. Status: List of Witness. Next hearing: 29th May 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHWR010017262025
Next Hearing
29th May 2026
Filing Number
812/2025
Filing Date
02-09-2025
Registration No
89/2025
Registration Date
02-09-2025
Court
District and Session Court , Wardha
Judge
4-DISTRICT JUDGE-3 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE WARDHA
FIR Details
FIR Number
450
Police Station
Police Station Kharangana
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station, Kharangna
Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Aanaji alias Maroti Lakshman Shendare Advocate - LADC Adv. Verma D.M., LADC Adv. Verma D.M.
Hearing History
Judge: 4-DISTRICT JUDGE-3 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE WARDHA
List of Witness
List of Witness
List of Witness
Charge
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-05-2026 | List of Witness |
| 30-04-2026 | List of Witness |
| 16-04-2026 | List of Witness |
| 08-04-2026 | Charge |
| 02-04-2026 | Order |
Interim Orders
BAIL DENIED The Court of Additional Sessions Judge-3 and Special Judge (POCSO Act), Wardha rejected the bail application of accused Annaji @ Maroti Lakshamn Shendre in a case involving alleged attempted sexual assault on a minor boy under sections 96 of BNS and sections 4, 8, 12 of POCSO Act. The Court found the allegations serious and credible, noting the FIR was lodged promptly, medical evidence corroborated the assault with visible injuries to the victim, witness statements were recorded promptly, and the accused provided no explanation for the injuries—warranting bail denial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
BAIL DENIED The Court of Additional Sessions Judge-3 and Special Judge (POCSO Act), Wardha rejected the bail application of accused Annaji @ Maroti Lakshamn Shendre in a case involving alleged attempted sexual assault on a minor boy under sections 96 of BNS and sections 4, 8, 12 of POCSO Act. The Court found the allegations serious and credible, noting the FIR was lodged promptly, medical evidence corroborated the assault with visible injuries to the victim, witness statements were recorded promptly, and the accused provided no explanation for the injuries—warranting bail denial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts