The State of Maharashtra vs Anil Gulabrao Pakhare Advocate - KHAN K. M. — 385/2019

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 143,147,148,324,504,506. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 20th May 2026.

Case disposed

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHJN030021422019

Filing Number

2142/2019

Filing Date

23-Jul-2019

Registration No

385/2019

Registration Date

23-Jul-2019

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate , Jalna

Judge

12-Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

Decision Date

20-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

138

Police Station

Taluka Jalna.

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 143,147,148,324,504,506

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Anil Gulabrao Pakhare Advocate - KHAN K. M.

  2. 2.Vilas Popat Pakhare

  3. 3.Kailas Popat Pakhare

  4. 4.Popat Haribhau Pakhare

    Adv. KHAN K. M.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-May-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: Criminal Case 385/2019 Decision: The court acquitted all four accused (Anil Gulabrao Pakhare, Vilas Popat Pakhare, Kailas Popat Pakhare, and Popat Haribhau Pakhare) and found them not guilty under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 504, 506. The prosecution failed to prove its charges of unlawful assembly, rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation beyond reasonable doubt. With only one eyewitness testimony and no corroborating evidence or physical proof, the court determined the case lacked sufficient evidentiary foundation for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-May-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  4. 15-May-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  5. 13-May-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  6. 21-Apr-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  8. 10-Feb-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  9. 15-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  10. 26-Nov-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  11. 04-Nov-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  12. 29-Sep-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  13. 18-Aug-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  14. 18-Jul-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  15. 18-Jun-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  16. 21-Apr-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  17. 18-Mar-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 1

  18. 25-Feb-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 1

  19. 16-Jan-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 1

  20. 06-Dec-2024

    Evidence Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 1

  21. 22-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 1

  22. 13-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 1

  23. 22-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 1

  24. 29-May-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  25. 02-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  26. 31-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  27. 27-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  28. 18-Sep-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  29. 24-Jul-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  30. 30-May-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  31. 28-Mar-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  32. 16-Feb-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  33. 04-Jan-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  34. 28-Nov-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  35. 13-Oct-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  36. 20-Aug-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  37. 25-Jul-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 2

  38. 07-Jun-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 4

  39. 16-Mar-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 4

  40. 03-Mar-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 4

  41. 01-Feb-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 4

  42. 29-Oct-2021

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 4

  43. 03-Sep-2021

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 4

  44. 08-Jul-2021

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 5

  45. 25-Jun-2021

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate First Class-6

  46. 07-Apr-2021

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 4

  47. 07-Dec-2020

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate First Class - 4

  48. 17-Oct-2020

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  49. 24-Jul-2020

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  50. 24-Apr-2020

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  51. 20-Feb-2020

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  52. 19-Feb-2020

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  53. 19-Nov-2019

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  54. 27-Sep-2019

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate First Class -3

  55. 23-Jul-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  56. 23-Jul-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 385/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Case 385/2019 Decision: The court acquitted all four accused (Anil Gulabrao Pakhare, Vilas Popat Pakhare, Kailas Popat Pakhare, and Popat Haribhau Pakhare) and found them not guilty under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 504, 506. The prosecution failed to prove its charges of unlawful assembly, rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation beyond reasonable doubt. With only one eyewitness testimony and no corroborating evidence or physical proof, the court determined the case lacked sufficient evidentiary foundation for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case