State vs MAHAVEER URF RAJU Advocate - SHRI ARJUN SINGH) Tolaram — 5684/2014
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 457,380. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 05th May 2026.
REG. CRI. CASE
CNR: RJAJ220000652012
Filing Number
383/2014
Filing Date
30-Jun-2012
Registration No
5684/2014
Registration Date
30-Jun-2012
Court
JM PUSHKAR TALUKA CRIMINAL
Judge
2-Acjm
Decision Date
05-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 07-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
86
Police Station
Pushkar
Year
2012
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State
Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor) APP II Advocate-advocate
Respondent(s)
-
1.MAHAVEER URF RAJU Advocate - SHRI ARJUN SINGH) Tolaram
Adv. advocate
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-May-2026
JudgementView PDF
Case Summary: 5684/2014 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pushkar acquitted both accused—Mahaveer alias Raju (age 35) and Tollaram (age 45)—of charges under IPC Sections 457 and 380 (burglary and theft) on May 5, 2026. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the accused committed the alleged theft of items from the complainant's home without reasonable doubt, as key prosecution witnesses contradicted each other regarding whether stolen goods were actually recovered from the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-May-2026
Disposed
Acjm
-
04-May-2026
Final arguments
Acjm
-
30-Apr-2026
Final arguments
Acjm
-
28-Apr-2026
Final arguments
Acjm
-
17-Apr-2026
Final arguments
Acjm
-
09-Apr-2026
Final arguments
Acjm
-
04-Apr-2026
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Acjm
-
25-Mar-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
13-Mar-2026
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Acjm
-
06-Mar-2026
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Acjm
-
27-Feb-2026
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Acjm
-
21-Feb-2026
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Acjm
-
12-Feb-2026
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Acjm
-
05-Feb-2026
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Acjm
-
09-Jan-2026
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Jm Pushkar
-
14-Nov-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
03-Oct-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
12-Sep-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
13-Aug-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
14-Jul-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
24-Jun-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
17-May-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
25-Apr-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
04-Apr-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
10-Mar-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
11-Feb-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
15-Jan-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
20-Dec-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
26-Nov-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
08-Nov-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
10-Oct-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
06-Sep-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
23-Aug-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
08-Aug-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
02-Aug-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
05-Jul-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
07-Jun-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
03-May-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
28-Mar-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
08-Feb-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
07-Dec-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
19-Oct-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
17-Aug-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
13-Jun-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
12-May-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
17-Feb-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
16-Dec-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
20-Oct-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
26-Aug-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
15-Jul-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
27-Apr-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
19-Feb-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
24-Dec-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
24-Nov-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
08-Oct-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
26-Aug-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
17-Jul-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
22-May-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
12-Apr-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
10-Feb-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
21-Dec-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
23-Oct-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
09-Sep-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
09-Jul-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
04-Jun-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
30-Apr-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
24-Feb-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
17-Jan-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
21-Nov-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
04-Oct-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
21-Jun-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
15-Mar-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
18-Jan-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
24-Dec-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
17-Dec-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
25-Oct-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
13-Sep-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
13-Jun-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
13-Apr-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Jm Pushkar
-
07-Dec-2017
Prosecution Evidence
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
18-Aug-2017
Awaiting Warrant
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
19-Apr-2017
Awaiting Warrant
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
07-Dec-2016
Awaiting Warrant
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
27-Aug-2016
Awaiting Warrant
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
14-Jun-2016
Awaiting Warrant
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
19-Jan-2016
Awaiting Warrant
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
16-Sep-2015
Awaiting Warrant
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
17-Jun-2015
Awaiting Warrant
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
08-May-2015
Awaiting Warrant
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
23-Jan-2015
Awaiting Warrant
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
19-Nov-2014
Awaiting Warrant
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
19-Sep-2014
Charge
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
11-Jun-2014
Awaiting Warrant
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
10-Mar-2014
Awaiting Warrant
-
17-Jan-2014
Arguments
-
20-Aug-2013
Awaiting Warrant
-
02-Mar-2013
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Jun-2012
Case filed
Registration No. 5684/2014
Case Summary: 5684/2014 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pushkar acquitted both accused—Mahaveer alias Raju (age 35) and Tollaram (age 45)—of charges under IPC Sections 457 and 380 (burglary and theft) on May 5, 2026. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the accused committed the alleged theft of items from the complainant's home without reasonable doubt, as key prosecution witnesses contradicted each other regarding whether stolen goods were actually recovered from the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts