The PSI Aland PS Aland vs Soyel s/o Razak Shaik ,R/O Hagaraga Kalaburagi,tQ KalabuaragiKalaburagi, — 4326/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),118(1),186(2),190,191(2),191(3),351(2),352. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KAKB220063392025

e-Filing Number

08-07-2025

Filing Number

4326/2025

Filing Date

14-Jul-2025

Registration No

4326/2025

Registration Date

14-Jul-2025

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALAND

Judge

324-Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 07-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

0033

Police Station

ALAND PS

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),118(1),186(2),190,191(2),191(3),351(2),352

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The PSI Aland PS (Police Station) Aland

    Adv. Shri. Ismail Patel APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Soyel s/o Razak Shaik ,R/O Hagaraga Kalaburagi,tQ KalabuaragiKalaburagi,

  2. 2.Iswarya Alias sunil S/o subhash deganva Age 25 yrs,R/O chinholicross kalaburgi,TQ ALAND

    Adv. null

  3. 3.Prema s/o Nurashing Rathod R/o ,Shahabjar naka kalaburgi,Tq KalaburgiKalaburagi,

    Adv. null

  4. 4.Anusha s/o Basavaraj Hiremath Age 25 yrs, R/o,Shahabajar naka Kalaburgi,TQ ALANDKodagu,

    Adv. null

  5. 5.Renuka s/o yallappa bhovi age 25 yrs, R/o Rajapur akalaburgi,Tq Kalaburgi

    Adv. null

  6. 6.Shayina s/o Hanamant Kambar Age 31 yrs, R/o Chincholi cross Kalaburgi,Tq Kalaburgi

    Adv. null

  7. 7.Manji s/o Karabasappa Hadapada age 27 yrs, R/o Asraya Colony Chincholi cross Kalaburgi,tQ Kalabuaragi

    Adv. null

  8. 8.Dashavant Alias shobh s/o Kalyani Koli age 35 yrs, R/O Hadpsar Pune,punePune city, Maharashtra

    Adv. null

  9. 9.Ankush s/o Saibanna Kambale age 35 yrs, , R/o Talegov Babade Pune,punePune rural, Maharashtra

    Adv. null

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    The Aland JMFC court acquitted all nine accused persons of charges including unlawful assembly, rioting, criminal intimidation, and assault under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court found that both the complainant and injured victim turned hostile witnesses, denying the alleged assault and threats, resulting in insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. With critical witnesses failing to support the prosecution case, the court invoked the principle that benefit of doubt favors the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  7. 30-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  8. 22-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  9. 20-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  10. 11-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  11. 05-Dec-2025

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  12. 26-Nov-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  13. 22-Nov-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  14. 03-Oct-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  15. 23-Aug-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  16. 14-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  17. 14-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4326/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Aland JMFC court acquitted all nine accused persons of charges including unlawful assembly, rioting, criminal intimidation, and assault under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court found that both the complainant and injured victim turned hostile witnesses, denying the alleged assault and threats, resulting in insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. With critical witnesses failing to support the prosecution case, the court invoked the principle that benefit of doubt favors the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case