State vs RAJVEEV SAINI — 70/2020

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 370,374. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

Session Case

CNR: RJAL010025332020

Filing Number

1797/2020

Filing Date

17-Jul-2020

Registration No

70/2020

Registration Date

17-Jul-2020

Court

DJ ADJ Alwar District HQ

Judge

6-Additional District and Sessions Judge No 04

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

104

Police Station

ARAVALI VIHAR

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 370,374
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act Section 75, 79

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJVEEV SAINI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Case Summary: State v. Rajveev Saini (70/2020) Court Decision (21.04.2026): The Additional Session Judge acquitted defendant Rajveev Saini (alias Raju) of charges under IPC Sections 370, 374 (human trafficking) and Juvenile Justice Act Sections 75, 79 and Child Labor Act Section 3/14. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged a minor in forced labor at his motorcycle service center. Critical evidence gaps—including no independent witnesses, no documents proving the accused's ownership of the establishment, medical reports indicating the boy was 18-19 years old (not a minor), and the alleged victim testifying he performed no work there—rendered the prosecution's case insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 04

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 04

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 04

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 04

  7. 06-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 04

  8. 16-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 04

  9. 18-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 04

  10. 27-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 04

  11. 11-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 04

  12. 21-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 04

  13. 12-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  14. 08-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  15. 20-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  16. 22-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  17. 13-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  18. 18-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  19. 12-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  20. 05-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  21. 05-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  22. 14-Mar-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  23. 10-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  24. 12-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  25. 14-Aug-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  26. 13-Jun-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  27. 20-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  28. 19-Jan-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  29. 10-Oct-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  30. 01-Aug-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  31. 31-May-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  32. 25-Feb-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  33. 30-Nov-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  34. 15-Sep-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  35. 10-Jun-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  36. 26-Mar-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  37. 18-Jan-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  38. 10-Dec-2020

    Compliance

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  39. 05-Oct-2020

    Compliance

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  40. 11-Sep-2020

    Compliance

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  41. 10-Sep-2020

    Compliance

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  42. 06-Aug-2020

    Compliance

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 01

  43. 17-Jul-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  44. 17-Jul-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 70/2020

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Rajveev Saini (70/2020) Court Decision (21.04.2026): The Additional Session Judge acquitted defendant Rajveev Saini (alias Raju) of charges under IPC Sections 370, 374 (human trafficking) and Juvenile Justice Act Sections 75, 79 and Child Labor Act Section 3/14. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged a minor in forced labor at his motorcycle service center. Critical evidence gaps—including no independent witnesses, no documents proving the accused's ownership of the establishment, medical reports indicating the boy was 18-19 years old (not a minor), and the alleged victim testifying he performed no work there—rendered the prosecution's case insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case