State vs IMRAN Advocate - Pramod Bakliwal — 1445/2021

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 384,386. Status: Hearing arguments on Charge. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.

Hearing arguments on Charge Next hearing 15-Jun-2026

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJBD020021582021

Filing Number

2154/2021

Filing Date

21-Sep-2021

Registration No

1445/2021

Registration Date

21-Sep-2021

Court

CJM ACJM JM Bundi HQ

Judge

5-CJM

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

181

Police Station

Kotwali,Bundi

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 384,386

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. A.P.O.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.IMRAN Advocate - Pramod Bakliwal

  2. 2.AKRAM HUSSAIN

  3. 3.PRAVEEN

  4. 4.ROHIT URF SANGAT

  5. 5.TOSIF

  6. 6.ARANAB GANGULI

    Adv. HEMANT CHATURVEDI

Case History

  1. 15-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 12-May-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 1445/2021 Outcome: Accused Arun Ganguli discharged under Section 239 CrPC The court discharged accused Arun Ganguli from charges under Sections 384 and 386 IPC (extortion), finding insufficient prima facie grounds for framing charges. The court identified critical investigative gaps: the accused's name did not appear in the original FIR despite being added later; test identification parade failed; no digital/banking connection established between accused and complainant; no recovery from accused; and absence of Section 197 CrPC sanction (required for prosecuting public servants). The court emphasized that co-accused confessions alone cannot link the accused without independent corroborating evidence, and that merely being a Narcotics Bureau inspector at the time of the alleged incident is insufficient to establish involvement in the crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-May-2026

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  4. 11-May-2026

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  5. 23-Apr-2026

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  6. 30-Mar-2026

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  7. 27-Mar-2026

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  8. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  9. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  10. 16-Jan-2026

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  11. 08-Dec-2025

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  12. 07-Nov-2025

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  13. 24-Sep-2025

    Appearance of accused

    CJM

  14. 10-Sep-2025

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    CJM

  15. 06-Aug-2025

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    CJM

  16. 03-Jul-2025

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    CJM

  17. 17-Jun-2025

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    CJM

  18. 19-May-2025

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    CJM

  19. 29-Apr-2025

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    CJM

  20. 27-Mar-2025

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    CJM

  21. 07-Mar-2025

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    CJM

  22. 03-Mar-2025

    Orders

    CJM

  23. 24-Feb-2025

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  24. 17-Feb-2025

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  25. 17-Jan-2025

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  26. 03-Jan-2025

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  27. 06-Dec-2024

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  28. 05-Nov-2024

    Final arguments

    CJM

  29. 18-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

  30. 21-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  31. 22-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  32. 03-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  33. 05-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  34. 04-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  35. 05-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  36. 16-Mar-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  37. 27-Feb-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  38. 30-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  39. 05-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  40. 12-Dec-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  41. 18-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  42. 25-Aug-2023

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  43. 11-Aug-2023

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  44. 28-Jul-2023

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  45. 11-Jul-2023

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  46. 15-Jun-2023

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  47. 01-Jun-2023

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  48. 26-Apr-2023

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  49. 18-Mar-2023

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  50. 03-Feb-2023

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  51. 15-Dec-2022

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  52. 09-Nov-2022

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  53. 04-Aug-2022

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  54. 08-Jul-2022

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  55. 10-May-2022

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  56. 07-Apr-2022

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  57. 11-Feb-2022

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  58. 06-Jan-2022

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  59. 09-Dec-2021

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  60. 25-Nov-2021

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  61. 12-Nov-2021

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  62. 29-Oct-2021

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  63. 16-Oct-2021

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  64. 04-Oct-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  65. 21-Sep-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1445/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 1445/2021 Outcome: Accused Arun Ganguli discharged under Section 239 CrPC The court discharged accused Arun Ganguli from charges under Sections 384 and 386 IPC (extortion), finding insufficient prima facie grounds for framing charges. The court identified critical investigative gaps: the accused's name did not appear in the original FIR despite being added later; test identification parade failed; no digital/banking connection established between accused and complainant; no recovery from accused; and absence of Section 197 CrPC sanction (required for prosecuting public servants). The court emphasized that co-accused confessions alone cannot link the accused without independent corroborating evidence, and that merely being a Narcotics Bureau inspector at the time of the alleged incident is insufficient to establish involvement in the crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case