State of Maharashtra through PSO Malegaon vs Rushabh Namdeo Rathod Advocate - Dy. Chief LADCS R. B. Vispute — 93/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 65(1),76,333. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
Spl.Case Child Prot. - Spl.Case under POCSO Act
CNR: MHWS010008652025
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
538/2025
Filing Date
16-09-2025
Registration No
93/2025
Registration Date
16-09-2025
Court
District and Sessions Court, Washim
Judge
12-District Judge 3 and ASJ, Washim
FIR Details
FIR Number
367
Police Station
MALEGAON
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra through PSO Malegaon
Respondent(s)
Rushabh Namdeo Rathod Advocate - Dy. Chief LADCS R. B. Vispute
Hearing History
Judge: 12-District Judge 3 and ASJ, Washim
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
Order on Exh
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-06-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 01-06-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 20-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-05-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 30-04-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State v. Rushabh Namdeo Rathod (Case 93/2025) The accused filed an application seeking cancellation of evidence (Articles A, B, C at Exhibit 25)—seized clothes of a victim—alleging the prosecution fraudulently produced them without proper identification during witness examination. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application, finding that the evidence was properly identified and marked during the first witness's (Mahesh Devanand Deshmukh's) chief examination on 23.02.2026, and the accused's contention that it was improperly introduced during the second witness's cross-examination was incorrect. Order: Application rejected (20.05.2026). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Rushabh Namdeo Rathod (Case 93/2025) The accused filed an application seeking cancellation of evidence (Articles A, B, C at Exhibit 25)—seized clothes of a victim—alleging the prosecution fraudulently produced them without proper identification during witness examination. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application, finding that the evidence was properly identified and marked during the first witness's (Mahesh Devanand Deshmukh's) chief examination on 23.02.2026, and the accused's contention that it was improperly introduced during the second witness's cross-examination was incorrect. Order: Application rejected (20.05.2026). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts