Rajasthan Goverment (W) vs Chintu gurjar Advocate - Asalam bharti — 1235/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379120b. Disposed: Contested--Convicted and Released on Probation on 09th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. - Criminal Regular
CNR: RJBR020013022016
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1443/2016
Filing Date
01-09-2016
Registration No
1235/2016
Registration Date
01-09-2016
Court
CJM ACJM JM Baran HQ
Judge
4-CJM Baran
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Convicted and Released on Probation
FIR Details
FIR Number
99
Police Station
Woman Police Station, Baran
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajasthan Goverment (W)
Adv. APO
Respondent(s)
Chintu gurjar Advocate - Asalam bharti
Dinesh Bhargav
Hearing History
Judge: 4-CJM Baran
Disposed
Final arguments
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 05-03-2026 | Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 04-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 09-01-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran (Rajasthan) convicted accused Chintu Gujjar and Dinesh Bhargav on March 9, 2026, for illegally extracting stone from the Parvati River without permission under IPC Sections 379, 120B, MMRD Act Rules 4/21, and MVM Act 146/196. The court found the prosecution's witness testimony and documentary evidence (including seizure records and site inspection maps) sufficient to prove the offenses, and sentenced them to probation with a ₹10,000 surety bond. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran (Rajasthan) convicted accused Chintu Gujjar and Dinesh Bhargav on March 9, 2026, for illegally extracting stone from the Parvati River without permission under IPC Sections 379, 120B, MMRD Act Rules 4/21, and MVM Act 146/196. The court found the prosecution's witness testimony and documentary evidence (including seizure records and site inspection maps) sufficient to prove the offenses, and sentenced them to probation with a ₹10,000 surety bond. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts