SHARUKH KHAN vs STATE THROUGH SHO PS DAYALPUR — 30/2026

Case under Indian Arms Act 1959 Section 25. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr Rev - CRIMINAL REVISION

CNR: DLNE010007572026

e-Filing Number

07-03-2026

Filing Number

339/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

30/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, North-East, KKD

Judge

423-Additional Sessions Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

67

Police Station

Dayal Pur

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

Indian Arms Act 1959 Section 25

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHARUKH KHAN

    Adv. Anirudh Ramanathan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE THROUGH SHO (Station House Officer) PS (Police Station) DAYALPUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: Sharukh Khan v. State (30/2026) The court dismissed Sharukh Khan's revision petition challenging the charge framing order under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Though Khan alleged illegal detention (24-28 February 2020), lack of public witnesses, absence of fingerprint evidence, and custodial torture, the court held these are matters for trial and found no patent illegality in the trial court's charging order. The court upheld the charge, noting police witnesses and recovery of a firearm on 27 February 2020 constitute sufficient grounds for proceeding to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Additional Sessions Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 30/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Sharukh Khan v. State (30/2026) The court dismissed Sharukh Khan's revision petition challenging the charge framing order under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Though Khan alleged illegal detention (24-28 February 2020), lack of public witnesses, absence of fingerprint evidence, and custodial torture, the court held these are matters for trial and found no patent illegality in the trial court's charging order. The court upheld the charge, noting police witnesses and recovery of a firearm on 27 February 2020 constitute sufficient grounds for proceeding to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case