Rajasthan Goverment vs Manoj Sahariya Advocate - Shyam Paliwal — 324/2017
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379,401. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJBR020005312017
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
529/2017
Filing Date
10-06-2016
Registration No
324/2017
Registration Date
10-06-2016
Court
CJM ACJM JM Baran HQ
Judge
4-CJM Baran
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
45
Police Station
Woman Police Station, Baran
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajasthan Goverment
Adv. Apo
Respondent(s)
Manoj Sahariya Advocate - Shyam Paliwal
Rakesh @ Kalu
Adv. Rajesh Jayant
Durgashankar
Adv. Rajesh Jayant
Hemraj
Hearing History
Judge: 4-CJM Baran
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Service of Non-bailable warrant
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 28-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 23-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 16-03-2026 | Service of Non-bailable warrant | |
| 10-03-2026 | Service of Non-bailable warrant |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Baran district acquitted accused Rakesh Urf Kalu and Hemraj under IPC Sections 379 and 401 (theft and criminal breach of trust) on March 30, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish ownership of the allegedly stolen tractor-trolley through documentary evidence, the recovery location was an open field with unclear ownership, and critical witnesses provided inconsistent testimony lacking corroboration. Benefit of doubt was granted to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Baran district acquitted accused Rakesh Urf Kalu and Hemraj under IPC Sections 379 and 401 (theft and criminal breach of trust) on March 30, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish ownership of the allegedly stolen tractor-trolley through documentary evidence, the recovery location was an open field with unclear ownership, and critical witnesses provided inconsistent testimony lacking corroboration. Benefit of doubt was granted to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts