The State of Maharashtra vs Sunil Shankar Debur 2 Advocate - Hajare D.R. — 2400108/2015
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 461380. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 24th March 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHYA160004112015
Filing Number
2400383/2015
Filing Date
29-09-2015
Registration No
2400108/2015
Registration Date
29-09-2015
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division Babulgaon
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Babhulgaon
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
141
Police Station
P.S.Babhulgaon
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. (A.P.P.)
Respondent(s)
Sunil Shankar Debur 2 Advocate - Hajare D.R.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Babhulgaon
Disposed
N.B.W._Ready
N.B.W._Ready
N.B.W._Ready
N.B.W._Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | N.B.W._Ready |
| 12-02-2026 | N.B.W._Ready |
| 14-01-2026 | N.B.W._Ready |
| 03-12-2025 | N.B.W._Ready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The First Class Judicial Magistrate's Court in Babuulgaon acquitted three accused (Sunil Shankarrao Debur, Namdev Shankar Bharti, and Praveen Ramdas Gadekar) charged under Indian Penal Code Sections 461 and 380 with Section 34 for allegedly committing theft of ₹14,500 worth of goods from a grocery store on June 23-24, 2015. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant witness could not definitively identify the accused as perpetrators, and corroborating circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish their direct involvement in the crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The First Class Judicial Magistrate's Court in Babuulgaon acquitted three accused (Sunil Shankarrao Debur, Namdev Shankar Bharti, and Praveen Ramdas Gadekar) charged under Indian Penal Code Sections 461 and 380 with Section 34 for allegedly committing theft of ₹14,500 worth of goods from a grocery store on June 23-24, 2015. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant witness could not definitively identify the accused as perpetrators, and corroborating circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish their direct involvement in the crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts