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
Next Hearing
22nd June 2026
Filing Number
581/2025
Filing Date
29-09-2025
Registration No
104/2025
Registration Date
29-09-2025
Court
District and Sessions Court, Washim
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
FIR Details
FIR Number
200
Police Station
JAULKA
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra through PSO Jaulka
Respondent(s)
Tanuj Ganesh Gaurkar Advocate - Shaikh Zahir Gafoor
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 08-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 04-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 04-05-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts