SOPAN YESHWANT PAWAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARY — Crl.A. No. 665/2012
Case under 1502Comp-criminal Law : Offences Against Children, Including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012(matters Filed by the State Government/ Complainant Against Acquittals or Reduction of Sentence.) Section II-A. Status: Pending.
CNR: SCIN010076412012
Filing Date
01-Mar-2012
Registration No
Crl.A. No. 665/2012
Diary Number
7641/2012
Order Date
28-Nov-2023
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Last updated 05-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SOPAN YESHWANT PAWAR
Adv. K. N. RAI (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [P-1] SUSHIL BALWADA[P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARY
Adv. AADITYA ANIRUDDHA PANDE[R-1] DEEPLAXMI SUBHASH MATWANKAR [R-2] DEEPLAXMI SUBHASH MATWANKAR [R-3] DEEPLAXMI SUBHASH MATWANKAR [R-4] DEEPLAXMI SUBHASH MATWANKAR [R-6] DEEPLAXMI SUBHASH MATWANKAR [R-5]
Case History
-
27-Nov-2025
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
-
20-Nov-2025
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
-
09-Oct-2025
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
-
28-Nov-2023
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Nov-2023
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
-
09-Nov-2023
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Nov-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Oct-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Oct-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Sep-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Sep-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Apr-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Feb-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Apr-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Mar-2012
Case filed
Registration No. Crl.A. No. 665/2012
Case Summary: Crl.A. No. 665/2012 - Sopan Yeshwant Pawar v. State of Maharashtra On 28-11-2023, the Supreme Court heard Criminal Appeal No. 665/2012 before Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra. The appellant did not appear despite proper notice, while respondent counsel was present. The Court directed the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) to appoint counsel to represent the appellant and listed the matter for subsequent hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts