Baramati Sessions Court: 12 Benches, 28,604 Cases Audited

# Baramati Sessions Court: 12 Benches, 28,604 Cases Audited Judge My Lawyer analyzed 28,604 cases filed at the Additional District and Sessions Court, Baramati, Dist. Pune between July 1993 and April 2026. Across twelve distinct bench positions, the court has disposed of 23,275 cases — an 81.4% disposal rate — while 5,329 matters remain pending. For disposed cases, the average resolution time is 498 days. The data captures everything from sessions trials and bail applications to criminal revisions and miscellaneous criminal proceedings, with the State of Maharashtra appearing as the respondent in the vast majority of cases. ---

The Court in Numbers

The Additional District and Sessions Court Baramati is one of the principal criminal courts serving Pune district's eastern tehsils: Baramati, Indapur, Daund, Purandar, and Bhor. As a sessions court, it holds jurisdiction over serious criminal offences — those punishable by imprisonment exceeding seven years — and hears criminal revisions, bail applications, and appeals from subordinate magistrate courts. Eighty-one percent disposal is a respectable headline number. Maharashtra's High Court has historically pressed sessions courts for 80%+ clearance rates, and Baramati clears that bar. However, aggregate disposal rates smooth over the wide disparities between court positions — disparities that matter for anyone waiting on a case. ---

Bench-by-Bench Scorecard

Sessions courts in Maharashtra record cases by court position rather than by individual judge name. A single position — say, "District Judge 1" — may have been occupied by multiple judges over the 33-year span covered by this dataset. What the data measures, therefore, is institutional throughput at each seat: the accumulated load, speed, and outcomes for all judges who have sat there. Four positions — DJ1, DJ2, Adhoc DJ1, and DJ3 — carry the court's active workload and collectively account for 75% of all cases. The eight remaining positions, most of them fully cleared, were deployed at different points in time and have since been discontinued or restructured. ---

Backlog Profile: Where the 5,329 Pending Cases Sit

The 2–5 year bucket is the court's pressure point. Forty-two percent of all pending matters — 2,262 cases — have been waiting between two and five years for resolution. These are cases filed roughly between 2020 and 2023, the same years in which annual filings nearly doubled. The backlog is therefore not a legacy problem from the 1990s or 2000s: it is primarily the residue of a recent caseload surge that the court has not yet fully absorbed. The 67 cases older than ten years are a smaller but more troubling category. At a Sessions Court, these are likely to include stalled trials where witnesses have turned hostile, accused persons have absconded, or procedural delays have accumulated over successive judge transfers. ---

Inside the Four Active Benches

District Judge 1 — The Court's Workhorse

With 6,858 cases and an 83.5% disposal rate, District Judge 1 carries the single largest load. Its 491-day average resolution is close to the court mean, and its petitioner win rate of 59.5% sits in the mid-range for the court. What distinguishes this position is sheer volume: it has handled more than twice the caseload of any ad-hoc seat and generated 2,007 recorded outcomes — including 1,052 petitioner victories, 715 respondent victories, and 240 settlements. In a sessions court context, where the "respondent" is almost always the State of Maharashtra or one of the police stations under its jurisdiction, the 59.5% petitioner win rate means that nearly six in ten accused persons, bail applicants, or revision petitioners who came before this bench left with a favourable order. District Judge 1 still carries 1,132 pending cases — the second-largest active backlog after District Judge-2's 1,197.

District Judge-2 — Lowest Petitioner Win Rate Among Active Benches

District Judge-2 handles 6,219 cases with an 80.8% disposal rate and a 457-day average — slightly faster than DJ1. But outcomes tell a different story. Of 2,311 recorded outcomes at this bench, 1,194 favoured the petitioner and 949 favoured the respondent (State), producing a 55.7% petitioner win rate — the lowest among the four active positions. Stated differently: when a case reaches an outcome before District Judge-2, the State wins 44.3% of contested matters, compared to 40.5% at DJ1, 34.4% at DJ3, and 36.5% at DJ4. Whether this difference reflects case-type distribution, charging patterns, or prosecutorial preparation is impossible to determine from outcome data alone. What the numbers establish is that there is a measurable difference in outcome ratios across seats, and District Judge-2's is the most prosecution-favourable of the active positions.

Adhoc D.J. 1 — Highest Backlog, Slowest Active Bench

The Adhoc D.J. 1 position is the weakest performer by both disposal rate and resolution speed. At 73.9% disposal it is the only active bench below the court's 81.4% average, and it carries 1,202 pending cases — the largest single-position backlog on the court. Its 653-day average resolution for disposed cases is 155 days slower than DJ1 and 244 days slower than DJ3. The ad-hoc designation is significant. Ad-hoc judges at sessions courts in Maharashtra are typically appointed on a temporary basis to address overflow from the regular docket. But the Adhoc D.J. 1 position has accumulated 4,614 cases — a volume comparable to a permanent bench — while its disposal performance lags. This creates a paradox: the seat established to reduce backlog has itself become a contributor to it.

District Judge-3 — Fastest Active Bench

District Judge-3 resolves disposed cases in an average of 409 days, the fastest among the four high-volume positions, and its petitioner win rate of 65.6% is the highest. Of 1,845 recorded outcomes, 1,150 went in favour of the petitioner and only 603 in favour of the respondent. The court's 77.3% disposal rate is below average, but with 954 pending matters its backlog is proportionally smaller than those at DJ1 or DJ2 relative to total caseload. ---

The Ad-Hoc Arithmetic: Speed Extremes at the Cleared Positions

Among the eight positions now fully or nearly fully cleared, average resolution times range from a remarkable 40 days to a striking 1,011 days — a 25-fold difference that says as much about case types as about judicial pace. **District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge Baramati (40 days, 357 cases)**: The 40-day average resolution is the fastest of any position in the dataset. This almost certainly reflects a batch of summary or interim applications — perhaps bail applications, anticipatory bail, or short-cause matters — assigned to this seat during a concentrated period. Standard sessions trials do not resolve in 40 days; the median sessions trial in Maharashtra runs well over a year. **District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge (289 days, 829 cases)**: Fully cleared with a 289-day average and a 75.8% petitioner win rate — the highest in the entire dataset. Three in four adjudicated cases here ended in favour of the petitioner. This position handled fewer serious contested trials and more bail-type or revision-type matters where applicants typically have better odds. **Adhoc District Judge 2 and Additional Sessions Judge (715 days, 1,408 cases)**: Near-fully cleared (99.8% disposal) but at 715 days average. At 1,408 cases this was a substantive position, likely activated during a high-caseload period and subsequently wound down. **Adhoc DISTRICT JUDGE-2 (1,011 days, 453 cases)**: The slowest resolved position in the dataset. Cases at this seat averaged 1,011 days — nearly two years and nine months. With zero pending cases remaining, the backlog was eventually cleared, but the pace suggests this position was handling older, stalled, or procedurally complex matters that had already aged before assignment. ---

The Prosecution's Ledger: State vs. Accused at Scale

In the respondent data, the State of Maharashtra and the police stations under its jurisdiction dominate the opposite side of the courtroom. The top respondents — combining various spellings and naming conventions in the dataset — are: The State's overall win rate as respondent hovers around 40–41%. This figure reflects the nature of the docket: a substantial portion of filings at a sessions court are bail applications, criminal revisions, and anticipatory bail petitions, in which the applicant (petitioner) prevails at higher-than-trial rates. The Daund Police Station at 50.9% and Baramati City at 47.2% show the highest state success rates; Yawat Police Station at 28.0% shows the lowest — meaning petitioners who oppose Yawat Police matters fare substantially better than those opposing Daund or Baramati City. Whether this reflects differences in chargesheeting quality, the complexity of cases from each station, or local legal representation patterns cannot be determined from aggregate data alone. The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP and variants) appears as petitioner lawyer in 3,893 combined cases — representing the state when it initiates prosecution or files criminal appeals — with an overall petitioner win rate of about 62–66% in that capacity. ---

The Lawyer Divide: Two Very Different Outcomes Profiles

Lawyers active at this court divide sharply into two performance clusters, with the gap going well beyond winning and losing.

Cluster One: High Volume, Low Win Rate, Long Duration

**Vasekar Sunil Ishwar** (1,059 cases as petitioner lawyer, 5.8% win rate, 1,360-day avg): The most active private petitioner lawyer in the dataset produces the worst outcomes of any high-volume advocate. Fewer than 6 in 100 of his disposed cases end in his client's favour, and average duration stretches to 1,360 days — more than three and a half years. This pattern is consistent with a lawyer who handles a high volume of criminal trial defences or complex revision matters where the case type itself predicts low success rates, rather than reflecting individual performance deficiency. **Taware Harish Bhagwanrao** (444 cases, 10.9% win rate, 880 days) and **TAWARE HARISH BHAGWAN** (360 cases, 2.1% win rate, 292 days): These entries appear to be the same or closely related advocate under variant spellings. The combined 804 cases produce win rates of 2–11%, among the worst in the dataset. The combination of very low win rates and multi-year average duration suggests consistent representation in matters where the petitioner faces strong prosecution evidence or adverse legal precedent. **Taware Vijay Gopalrao** (211 cases, 9.1% win rate, 1,578 days): The longest average duration of any significant petitioner lawyer — 1,578 days, or more than four years. With a 9.1% win rate and cases that stretch to the outer edge of the court's timeline, this advocate's profile suggests representation in complex criminal trials or matters that survive multiple rounds of judicial consideration before resolution.

Cluster Two: Moderate Volume, High Win Rate, Very Fast Resolution

**Kale Amar Mahadevrao** + **Adv Amar Mahadevrao Kale** (combined 1,266 cases, 55–58% win rate, 29–49 day avg): When these linked entries are treated together, this advocate represents the court's highest-volume practitioner by win rate in the 50%+ bracket — with case resolution averaging under 50 days. A 49-day average at a court where the overall mean is 498 days represents a factor-10 differential. This almost certainly reflects specialisation in a distinct case type: probably execution petitions, interlocutory applications, or short-cause civil-criminal matters that proceed to resolution on a summary track. **Wagh Sachin Sudhakar** (345 cases, 58.9% win rate, 34 days avg): The second-fastest major petitioner lawyer at 34 days, also holding a 58.9% win rate. Near-identical profile to the Kale grouping. **Pataskar Sudhir Sharad** (299 cases, 58.0% win rate, 65 days) and **PATASKAR BHARGAV SUDHIR** (180 cases, 59.4% win rate, 20 days): The Pataskar name appears at two career stages — Sudhir Sharad and Bhargav Sudhir likely represent successive generations or a senior-junior association. Their combined 479 cases share the same characteristics: win rates of 58–60% and resolution times of 20–65 days. Pataskar Bhargav Sudhir's 20-day average is the fastest of any lawyer with more than 100 cases in the dataset. **The cross-over effect**: When Kale Rajendra Dattatraya and Pataskar Sudhir Sharad appear on the opposite side — as respondent lawyers rather than petitioner lawyers — the picture reverses sharply. As respondent lawyers, Kale Rajendra's cases run to 1,715 days and his clients win only 11.1% of contested matters; Pataskar Sudhir's respondent-side cases average 1,077 days with a 0% respondent win rate across recorded outcomes. The same lawyers who move cases to resolution in weeks when representing petitioners spend years on the other side with their clients losing. The most likely explanation is that their petitioner-side caseload consists of different case types (summary or revision matters) while their respondent-side caseload consists of contested sessions trials in which both duration and outcome are governed by the nature of the charges and available evidence. ---

The Caseload Explosion: 2019–2023

Annual filings at the court tell a story of sudden and dramatic growth. The gap in the data between 2013 and 2019 reflects the court's digitisation timeline: e-courts data for this court became reliably populated around 2019. The filings in 2011–2013 (~750–1,377/year) are not directly comparable to post-2019 figures because earlier cases may have been partially recorded. From 2019 to 2023, annual filings grew from 2,316 to 4,639 — a 100% increase in four years. Disposal kept pace through 2022, with 3,849 cases disposed against 4,613 filed. But in 2023 the gap widened: 4,639 filed, only 3,737 disposed — leaving 902 new pending cases that year alone. In 2024, filings dropped slightly to 4,089 while disposal remained at 3,247, adding another 842 to the unresolved pile. By 2025, the court disposed of only 1,273 of the 2,674 cases filed, generating 1,401 new pending cases in a single year. The 2025 figures deserve contextual caution: the dataset extends only through April 2026, meaning 2025 cases filed in the second half of the year may not yet have received their disposal dates. The surge in net-new pending cases in 2025 likely reflects in part the lag between filing and disposal for recent matters, rather than a sudden collapse in efficiency. What is clear, however, is structural: a court built on a roughly 1,000–2,000 case annual load is now absorbing 4,000–5,000 filings per year. The four active bench positions — DJ1, DJ2, Adhoc DJ1, and DJ3 — have absorbed this load without a proportional increase in positions. The 5,329 currently pending cases are the accumulated consequence. ---

What the Data Means

The data from Additional District and Sessions Court Baramati points toward five findings that litigants, lawyers, and policymakers should weigh. First, the court's overall 81.4% disposal rate obscures deep structural inequality between bench positions. The gap between the fastest active bench (District Judge-3 at 409 days) and the slowest (Adhoc D.J. 1 at 653 days) represents eight additional months of wait time — a difference large enough to materially affect accused persons on bail, victims awaiting closure, and civil parties in attached proceedings. Second, petitioner win rates vary significantly by bench, from 52.5% at Adhoc District Judge 2 to 75.8% at District Judge 5. At a sessions court where the petitioner is typically an accused person seeking bail or revision of a lower court order, this variation is consequential. A petitioner whose matter falls before District Judge 5 faces markedly better odds than one before Adhoc DJ2 — and neither the petitioner nor the lawyer can typically choose the bench. Third, the Adhoc D.J. 1 position's combination of the lowest disposal rate (73.9%) and the largest single-position backlog (1,202 cases) represents a systemic problem, not a temporary one. Ad-hoc positions are meant to be relief valves; this one has become a pressure point. The position has accumulated a caseload that rivals permanent benches while performing below the court's average on every disposal metric. Fourth, the lawyer data reveals a two-speed court within the same institution. Advocates like Kale Amar Mahadevrao and the Pataskar family resolve cases in weeks with high win rates; advocates like Vasekar Sunil Ishwar and the Taware family see cases drag for years with low success rates. While case type is the most likely explanatory variable, the pattern is durable enough across thousands of cases to warrant scrutiny. Litigants selecting representation should be aware that outcome and duration patterns at this court are strongly associated with which lawyer appears on the petitioner's side. Fifth, the caseload trajectory presents a medium-term challenge. If annual filings stabilise around 4,000–4,500 cases and the court's four active benches continue disposing 3,200–3,850 cases per year, the pending backlog will grow by roughly 500–1,000 cases annually. At that rate, the court's backlog will double within five to ten years. Either disposal capacity must expand — through additional permanent or ad-hoc positions — or filings must be redistributed to subordinate courts. The data does not resolve the policy question, but it does define the arithmetic precisely. ---

About the Data and Methodology

This article is based on case-level data published by the e-Courts platform and analyzed by Judge My Lawyer (JudgeMyLawyer.com), India's legal analytics platform. The dataset covers 28,604 cases filed at Additional District and Sessions Court, Baramati, Dist. Pune, with filing dates ranging from July 9, 1993 to April 22, 2026. All analysis uses fields as recorded in the court's official digital case records: case status (DISPOSED/PENDING), filing date, outcome category, judge position, petitioner lawyer name, and respondent lawyer name. Average resolution days are calculated only for disposed cases with positive case duration values. Where lawyer names appear in multiple formats or spellings (e.g., "APP" and "A.P.P." or "Kale Amar Mahadevrao" and "Adv Amar Mahadevrao Kale"), each variant is counted separately unless noted otherwise. The data does not include case documents, FIR text, charge sheets, or judicial reasoning. Outcome categories reflect the formal recorded outcome, not the substantive merits of each decision. Case type classifications (bail, trial, revision) are inferred from surrounding data patterns and are not explicitly coded in the source records. Lawyer name variations mean that individual advocate totals may be slightly understated where the same person appears under different spellings. Filing data for 2014–2018 appears incomplete or absent in the dataset, likely reflecting the court's digitisation timeline. Conclusions about long-term filing trends are therefore drawn from post-2019 data only. --- *This article is a factual summary of publicly available court data. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice or a comment on the merits of any individual case. All outcome patterns are descriptive and are derived from aggregate data; they cannot predict the outcome of any specific matter. Readers who require legal guidance should consult a qualified advocate. Judge My Lawyer does not represent any party in any case referenced in this analysis.*