STATE vs MOHD. ARIF — 395/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 394,397,452,458,506,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: DLNE010037932022

Filing Number

2021/2022

Filing Date

17-Nov-2022

Registration No

395/2022

Registration Date

17-Nov-2022

Court

District and Sessions Judge, North-East, KKD

Judge

413-Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

996

Police Station

Khajuri Khas

Year

2014

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 394,397,452,458,506,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MOHD. ARIF

  2. 2.JAAN MOHD. @JAANU

  3. 3.AKRAM

  4. 4.DEEN MOHD @ SALMAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Copy Of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary: State v. Mohd. Arif & Ors. (SC 395/2022) The court acquitted all four accused—Mohd. Arif, Akram, Jaan Mohd., and Deen Mohd.—of charges under IPC Sections 458/392/34 (burglary and theft), with Arif also acquitted of Section 397 (dacoity). Though the complainant and his wife testified that four boys broke into their home on 16.09.2014 and robbed Rs. 60,000 plus jewelry, both turned hostile and failed to identify any accused in court, citing darkness during the incident. With no corroborating witness testimony or incriminating evidence, the court found insufficient grounds to connect the accused to the alleged offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  7. 11-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  8. 08-Jan-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  9. 08-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  10. 30-Oct-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  11. 30-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  12. 20-Aug-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  13. 20-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  14. 21-May-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  15. 21-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  16. 10-Mar-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  17. 10-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  18. 21-Jan-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  19. 21-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  20. 04-Dec-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  21. 04-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  22. 21-Oct-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  23. 21-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  24. 04-Sep-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  25. 04-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  26. 25-Jul-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  27. 25-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  28. 01-Jul-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  29. 01-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  30. 03-Jun-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  31. 03-Jun-2024

    Misc./ Appearance

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  32. 29-Apr-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  33. 29-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  34. 02-Apr-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  35. 02-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  36. 22-Feb-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  37. 22-Feb-2024

    Misc./ Appearance

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  38. 31-Jan-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  39. 31-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  40. 21-Nov-2023

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  41. 21-Nov-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  42. 30-Oct-2023

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  43. 30-Oct-2023

    Misc./ Appearance

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  44. 24-Aug-2023

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  45. 24-Aug-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  46. 28-Jul-2023

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  47. 28-Jul-2023

    Charge

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  48. 02-May-2023

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  49. 02-May-2023

    Proper Order

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  50. 04-Feb-2023

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  51. 04-Feb-2023

    Charge

    Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District

  52. 17-Nov-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  53. 17-Nov-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 395/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: State v. Mohd. Arif & Ors. (SC 395/2022) The court acquitted all four accused—Mohd. Arif, Akram, Jaan Mohd., and Deen Mohd.—of charges under IPC Sections 458/392/34 (burglary and theft), with Arif also acquitted of Section 397 (dacoity). Though the complainant and his wife testified that four boys broke into their home on 16.09.2014 and robbed Rs. 60,000 plus jewelry, both turned hostile and failed to identify any accused in court, citing darkness during the incident. With no corroborating witness testimony or incriminating evidence, the court found insufficient grounds to connect the accused to the alleged offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case