State Through Murud Police Station vs Rajesh Sundarlal Bahal Advocate - Thakur M. M. — 74/2018
Case under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 Section 52,53,54,55. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th March 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHRG120001742018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
156/2018
Filing Date
25-06-2018
Registration No
74/2018
Registration Date
25-06-2018
Court
Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C.,Murud
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr. Dvn. and J. M. F. C. Murud
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
43
Police Station
Murud Police Station
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Through Murud Police Station
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Rajesh Sundarlal Bahal Advocate - Thakur M. M.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr. Dvn. and J. M. F. C. Murud
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 02-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 12-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 14-01-2026 | Arguments | |
| 07-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Judgment Summary The First Class Judicial Magistrate at Murud, Raigad acquitted the accused Rajesh Sundarlal Bahl of charges under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (Sections 52, 53, 54, 55) and the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (Section 15). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient and contradictory evidence, defective procedure in the complaint registration, and questionable credibility of witness testimonies regarding the alleged 792 square meter unauthorized construction on coastal land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Judgment Summary The First Class Judicial Magistrate at Murud, Raigad acquitted the accused Rajesh Sundarlal Bahl of charges under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (Sections 52, 53, 54, 55) and the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (Section 15). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient and contradictory evidence, defective procedure in the complaint registration, and questionable credibility of witness testimonies regarding the alleged 792 square meter unauthorized construction on coastal land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts