State of Maharashtra Kopari Police Station Dist. Thane vs Rajkumar Pesumal Aeilani — 139/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 353. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

Sessions Case

CNR: MHTH010011832025

Filing Number

718/2025

Filing Date

15-Feb-2025

Registration No

139/2025

Registration Date

15-Feb-2025

Court

District and Session Court , Thane

Judge

4-Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

87

Police Station

Kopari Police Station

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 353
Maharashtra Police Act Section 112,117
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Section 3
Motor Vehicles Act Section 130,117,177
Criminal Law Amendment Act Section 7

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra Kopari Police Station Dist. Thane

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Rajkumar Pesumal Aeilani

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Rajkumar Pesumal Ailani (Session Case 139/2025) Court Decision: Accused acquitted on all charges. Key Reasoning: The Additional Sessions Judge found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on all five charges (IPC Section 353, Mumbai Police Act Sections 112/117, Motor Vehicles Act Sections 130(1)/177). Critical gaps included: (1) no documentary proof of a valid no-entry traffic restriction; (2) the spot panchanama made no mention of no-entry signage; (3) exclusive reliance on seven interested police witnesses with zero independent public corroboration despite the incident occurring at a busy public junction at 8 PM; and (4) failure to establish actual obstruction to traffic. The court emphasized that Section 353 IPC requires proof of lawful duty being performed, which collapsed when the underlying traffic restriction wasn't proven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  7. 20-Feb-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  8. 04-Feb-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  9. 30-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  10. 24-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  11. 09-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  12. 19-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  13. 04-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  14. 21-Nov-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  15. 07-Nov-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  16. 17-Oct-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  17. 12-Sep-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  18. 22-Aug-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge 3 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  19. 25-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge 3 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  20. 23-May-2025

    Evidence

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge 3 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  21. 04-Apr-2025

    Charge

    Ad-hoc Dist. Judge 3 and Addl. Sessions Judge Thane

  22. 12-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 15-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 139/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Rajkumar Pesumal Ailani (Session Case 139/2025) Court Decision: Accused acquitted on all charges. Key Reasoning: The Additional Sessions Judge found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on all five charges (IPC Section 353, Mumbai Police Act Sections 112/117, Motor Vehicles Act Sections 130(1)/177). Critical gaps included: (1) no documentary proof of a valid no-entry traffic restriction; (2) the spot panchanama made no mention of no-entry signage; (3) exclusive reliance on seven interested police witnesses with zero independent public corroboration despite the incident occurring at a busy public junction at 8 PM; and (4) failure to establish actual obstruction to traffic. The court emphasized that Section 353 IPC requires proof of lawful duty being performed, which collapsed when the underlying traffic restriction wasn't proven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case