The State vs Manik Babanrao Tehare — 300406/2002
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 380511. Disposed: Uncontested--DISCHARGED on 23rd March 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHJN030003472002
Filing Number
300406/2002
Filing Date
09-09-2002
Registration No
300406/2002
Registration Date
11-09-2002
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Jalna
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISCHARGED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Manik Babanrao Tehare
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Dormant File
Dormant File
Dormant File
Dormant File
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Dormant File |
| 07-03-2026 | Dormant File |
| 18-02-2026 | Dormant File |
| 28-11-2025 | Dormant File |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Manik Babanrao Tehare (RCC 300406/2002) The Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the accused Manik Babanrao Tehare under Section 239 of the CrPC from charges under Sections 380 and 511 IPC (attempted theft). Although witnesses testified that a theft occurred at a shop on 07.08.2002 and the perpetrator identified himself as Manik, the court found the evidence insufficient for conviction as most eyewitnesses could not identify the accused. Given the case's 23-year pendency, the accused's continued absence despite warrants, and the impossibility of securing evidence for conviction, the court determined no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Manik Babanrao Tehare (RCC 300406/2002) The Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the accused Manik Babanrao Tehare under Section 239 of the CrPC from charges under Sections 380 and 511 IPC (attempted theft). Although witnesses testified that a theft occurred at a shop on 07.08.2002 and the perpetrator identified himself as Manik, the court found the evidence insufficient for conviction as most eyewitnesses could not identify the accused. Given the case's 23-year pendency, the accused's continued absence despite warrants, and the impossibility of securing evidence for conviction, the court determined no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts