Sunita vs State — 271/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 17th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: RJAJ010009572026
Filing Number
687/2026
Filing Date
11-03-2026
Registration No
271/2026
Registration Date
11-03-2026
Court
DJ ADJ Ajmer District HQ
Judge
2-Addl District and Sessions Judge I
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Bail Refused
FIR Details
FIR Number
45
Police Station
Ramganj
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sunita
Adv. Ajay Kumar Verma 1
Respondent(s)
State
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Addl District and Sessions Judge I
Disposed
Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 271/2026 (Sunita v. State) Court Decision: The Additional District and Sessions Judge upheld the lower court's order rejecting the FIR (No. 289/2015) under Section 203 Cr.P.C., dismissing Sunita's revision petition dated 17 March 2026. The court found insufficient evidence to establish that accused Somnath committed robbery on 6 December 2015, noting critical gaps including lack of eyewitness testimony at the crime scene, contradictions in witness statements, absence of forensic evidence linking the accused, and failure to establish custody of stolen items connecting the accused to the crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 271/2026 (Sunita v. State) Court Decision: The Additional District and Sessions Judge upheld the lower court's order rejecting the FIR (No. 289/2015) under Section 203 Cr.P.C., dismissing Sunita's revision petition dated 17 March 2026. The court found insufficient evidence to establish that accused Somnath committed robbery on 6 December 2015, noting critical gaps including lack of eyewitness testimony at the crime scene, contradictions in witness statements, absence of forensic evidence linking the accused, and failure to establish custody of stolen items connecting the accused to 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