State of Mah. through Police Station, Bhiwapur vs Ayush Maroti Thul And Others — 77/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 118(1),352,351(2),351(3),3(5). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 05th May 2026.
R.C.C. - Reg.Cri.Case
CNR: MHNG170006922025
e-Filing Number
01-07-2025
Filing Number
648/2025
Filing Date
04-08-2025
Registration No
77/2025
Registration Date
06-08-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Bhiwapur
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. AND J.M.F.C.,BHIWAPUR
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
234
Police Station
Bhiwapur
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Mah. through Police Station, Bhiwapur
Adv. Adv. S. S. More
Respondent(s)
Ayush Maroti Thul And Others
Maroti Ramchandra Thul
Durga Maroti Thul
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. AND J.M.F.C.,BHIWAPUR
Disposed
Arguments
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 23-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 19-12-2025 | Appearance |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The First Class Magistrate Court in Bhiwapur acquitted all three accused persons—Aayush Maroti Thul, Maroti Ramchandra Thul, and Durga Maroti Thul—of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 118(1), 351(2), 351(3), and 352 with section 3(5). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case, as the sole prosecution witness (the complainant Baban Ramchandra Thul) did not support the prosecution's allegations and even admitted to an out-of-court settlement with the accused. Consequently, all accused were acquitted under IPC section 271(1) and released on personal bonds of ₹15,000 each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The First Class Magistrate Court in Bhiwapur acquitted all three accused persons—Aayush Maroti Thul, Maroti Ramchandra Thul, and Durga Maroti Thul—of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 118(1), 351(2), 351(3), and 352 with section 3(5). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case, as the sole prosecution witness (the complainant Baban Ramchandra Thul) did not support the prosecution's allegations and even admitted to an out-of-court settlement with the accused. Consequently, all accused were acquitted under IPC section 271(1) and released on personal bonds of ₹15,000 each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts