State of Maharashtra through PSO Jaulka vs Tanuj Ganesh Gaurkar Advocate - Shaikh Zahir Gafoor — 104/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 137(2),64,(1). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
Atro.Spl.Case - Special Case under Prevention of Atrocities Act
CNR: MHWS010009182025
Filing Number
581/2025
Filing Date
29-Sep-2025
Registration No
104/2025
Registration Date
29-Sep-2025
Court
District and Sessions Court, Washim
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
200
Police Station
JAULKA
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra through PSO Jaulka
Respondent(s)
-
1.Tanuj Ganesh Gaurkar Advocate - Shaikh Zahir Gafoor
Case History
-
22-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
12-Jun-2026
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
08-Jun-2026
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
04-Jun-2026
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
13-May-2026
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
04-May-2026
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
22-Apr-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
15-Apr-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
01-Apr-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
25-Mar-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
20-Mar-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
16-Mar-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
05-Mar-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
21-Feb-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
16-Feb-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
07-Feb-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
27-Jan-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
17-Jan-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
13-Jan-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
05-Jan-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
02-Jan-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
17-Dec-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
08-Dec-2025
Evidence
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
27-Nov-2025
Awaiting Muddemal
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
17-Nov-2025
Awaiting Muddemal
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
29-Oct-2025
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case Summary: Sessions Atrocity Case No. 104/2025 The accused's bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Washim on 29/10/2025. The accused was charged with rape and offences under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for allegedly threatening, forcibly taking, and repeatedly raping a Scheduled Tribe victim over several months, resulting in her pregnancy. The court rejected the accused's claim of consensual relationship, noting he was already married, the victim was a vulnerable ST member, and crucial distinguishing factors present in cited precedents were absent here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
29-Oct-2025
Charge
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
28-Oct-2025
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
16-Oct-2025
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
-
06-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
29-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 104/2025
Case Summary: Sessions Atrocity Case No. 104/2025 The accused's bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Washim on 29/10/2025. The accused was charged with rape and offences under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for allegedly threatening, forcibly taking, and repeatedly raping a Scheduled Tribe victim over several months, resulting in her pregnancy. The court rejected the accused's claim of consensual relationship, noting he was already married, the victim was a vulnerable ST member, and crucial distinguishing factors present in cited precedents were absent here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts