The State of Maharashtra through P.S. Ralegaon vs Ganesh Shankar Bhavik — 481/2023

Case under Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act Section 12(a),109. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 24th June 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHYA190008262023

Filing Number

742/2023

Filing Date

17-Jul-2023

Registration No

481/2023

Registration Date

17-Jul-2023

Court

Civil Court Junior Division, Ralegaon

Judge

1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon

Decision Date

24-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 17-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

404

Police Station

Police Station Ralegaon

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act Section 12(a),109

Petitioner(s)

1.The State of Maharashtra through P.S. Ralegaon

Adv. Vinod M. Shrote

Respondent(s)

1.Ganesh Shankar Bhavik
2.Navinkumar Prayagrao Telang
3.Kirti Ramrao Gujurkar

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
24-Jun-2026

Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Ganesh Shankar Bhavik & Others (Case 481/2023) The court acquitted all three accused of gambling charges under the Maharashtra Gambling Prohibition Act, 1887 Section 12(a) and IPC Section 109. The prosecution failed to prove the case due to critical evidentiary gaps: the key witness (panchnama witness) retracted his statement, denying the police investigation; the alleged gambling location was not independently verified; and no independent evidence linked the confiscated money (₹3,150) to the accused. The court applied the "benefit of doubt" principle, holding that incomplete evidence chains cannot support conviction, and ordered acquittal with release of bail bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
24-Jun-2026

Disposed

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
26-May-2026

Evidence Part Heard

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
22-Apr-2026

Evidence Part Heard

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
01-Apr-2026

Evidence Part Heard

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
10-Mar-2026

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
03-Feb-2026

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
02-Jan-2026

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
05-Dec-2025

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
07-Nov-2025

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
10-Oct-2025

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
15-Sep-2025

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
11-Aug-2025

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
21-Jul-2025

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
08-May-2025

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
28-Mar-2025

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
14-Feb-2025

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
23-Jan-2025

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
19-Dec-2024

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
22-Nov-2024

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
08-Oct-2024

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
05-Sep-2024

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
06-Aug-2024

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
18-Jul-2024

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
28-Jun-2024

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
02-May-2024

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
29-Feb-2024

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
17-Jan-2024

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Ralegaon
04-Nov-2023

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
17-Jul-2023

Case filed

Registration No. 481/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Ganesh Shankar Bhavik & Others (Case 481/2023) The court acquitted all three accused of gambling charges under the Maharashtra Gambling Prohibition Act, 1887 Section 12(a) and IPC Section 109. The prosecution failed to prove the case due to critical evidentiary gaps: the key witness (panchnama witness) retracted his statement, denying the police investigation; the alleged gambling location was not independently verified; and no independent evidence linked the confiscated money (₹3,150) to the accused. The court applied the "benefit of doubt" principle, holding that incomplete evidence chains cannot support conviction, and ordered acquittal with release of bail bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.