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.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHJN030021422019
Filing Number
2142/2019
Filing Date
23-07-2019
Registration No
385/2019
Registration Date
23-07-2019
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Jalna
Judge
12-Judicial Magistrate First Class -3
Decision Date
20th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
138
Police Station
Taluka Jalna.
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Anil Gulabrao Pakhare Advocate - KHAN K. M.
Vilas Popat Pakhare
Kailas Popat Pakhare
Popat Haribhau Pakhare
Adv. KHAN K. M.
Hearing History
Judge: 12-Judicial Magistrate First Class -3
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 15-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts