STATE OF MAHARASHATRA vs Shaikh Ansar Sahikh Babamiya Advocate - Shaikh S. B. — 134/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379,353,332,201,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 02nd April 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHBI010028152023
Filing Number
1234/2023
Filing Date
04-08-2023
Registration No
134/2023
Registration Date
05-08-2023
Court
District and Sessions Court , Beed
Judge
7-Adhoc Dist. Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge Beed
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
346
Police Station
Pimpalner Police Station
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF MAHARASHATRA
Adv. Tidke Anil B.
Respondent(s)
Shaikh Ansar Sahikh Babamiya Advocate - Shaikh S. B.
Shaikh Faruq Shaikh Sharif Bagwan
Shaikh Samshir Shaikh Feroj
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Adhoc Dist. Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge Beed
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 31-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Additional Sessions Judge in Beed acquitted all three accused (Shaikh Ansar, Shaikh Faruk, and Shaikh Samshir) of charges under IPC Sections 379, 353, 332, and 201, finding insufficient evidence to prove the alleged illegal sand transportation, assault on a public servant, or obstruction of duty. The court noted critical gaps: the prosecution's sole eyewitness (the informant) failed to provide full identification details, no independent witnesses were examined, and no medical evidence corroborated claims of hurt caused to the informant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The Additional Sessions Judge in Beed acquitted all three accused (Shaikh Ansar, Shaikh Faruk, and Shaikh Samshir) of charges under IPC Sections 379, 353, 332, and 201, finding insufficient evidence to prove the alleged illegal sand transportation, assault on a public servant, or obstruction of duty. The court noted critical gaps: the prosecution's sole eyewitness (the informant) failed to provide full identification details, no independent witnesses were examined, and no medical evidence corroborated claims of hurt caused to the informant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts