State of Maharashtra vs Roshansing Bablusing Tak — 47/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 331(4),305(a),3(5). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th April 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHLA120003592026
Filing Number
186/2026
Filing Date
04-02-2026
Registration No
47/2026
Registration Date
05-02-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Nilanga
Judge
1-Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Nilanga
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
58
Police Station
Kasar sirsi
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Roshansing Bablusing Tak
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Nilanga
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 07-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 06-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 04-04-2026 | Judgment |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Roshansing Bablusing Tak (RCC 47/2026) The Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused Roshansing Bablusing Tak of charges under Sections 331(4), 305(a), and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (house-breaking theft). While the court accepted that a theft by house-breaking occurred at Vishvakarma Jewellers on 23-24 March 2025, it found the prosecution failed to prove the accused's involvement due to procedural lapses in property seizure, lack of proper discovery memorandum, and inability to establish that stolen articles (108 silver anklets) were recovered from the accused in timely manner—critical evidentiary gaps defeating conviction beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Roshansing Bablusing Tak (RCC 47/2026) The Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused Roshansing Bablusing Tak of charges under Sections 331(4), 305(a), and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (house-breaking theft). While the court accepted that a theft by house-breaking occurred at Vishvakarma Jewellers on 23-24 March 2025, it found the prosecution failed to prove the accused's involvement due to procedural lapses in property seizure, lack of proper discovery memorandum, and inability to establish that stolen articles (108 silver anklets) were recovered from the accused in timely manner—critical evidentiary gaps defeating conviction beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts