STATE vs HEMRAJ ETC. Advocate - MOHD. SHAREEF — 172/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 143,448,427. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 10th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJBD140003932021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
393/2021
Filing Date
20-10-2021
Registration No
172/2021
Registration Date
20-10-2021
Court
JM Indergarh Taluka
Judge
1-JM
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
44
Police Station
Indergarh
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE
Adv. APO
Respondent(s)
HEMRAJ ETC. Advocate - MOHD. SHAREEF
MEGHRAJ
LAKSHMAN
BHARATLAL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JM
Disposed
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 07-03-2026 | Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 26-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 11-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate court in Indragarh, Bundi district acquitted all four accused (Hemraj, Meghraj, Bhartlal, and Lakshman) on March 10, 2026, finding that the prosecution failed to prove charges under IPC sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 448 (criminal trespass), and 427 (mischief causing damage) beyond reasonable doubt. The court found critical inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly noting that the key eyewitness (Asif) claimed no knowledge of the incident despite being present at the property, while other prosecution witnesses provided contradictory accounts about who witnessed the alleged property damage on February 29, 2020. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Judicial Magistrate court in Indragarh, Bundi district acquitted all four accused (Hemraj, Meghraj, Bhartlal, and Lakshman) on March 10, 2026, finding that the prosecution failed to prove charges under IPC sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 448 (criminal trespass), and 427 (mischief causing damage) beyond reasonable doubt. The court found critical inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly noting that the key eyewitness (Asif) claimed no knowledge of the incident despite being present at the property, while other prosecution witnesses provided contradictory accounts about who witnessed the alleged property damage on February 29, 2020. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts