Rajasthan Goverment (S) vs Mukesh Advocate - Manoj Kumar Jain — 1276/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338,. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. - Criminal Regular
CNR: RJBR020013452016
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1489/2016
Filing Date
08-09-2016
Registration No
1276/2016
Registration Date
08-09-2016
Court
CJM ACJM JM Baran HQ
Judge
4-CJM Baran
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
626
Police Station
Sadar Police Station, Baran
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajasthan Goverment (S)
Adv. APO
Respondent(s)
Mukesh Advocate - Manoj Kumar Jain
Hearing History
Judge: 4-CJM Baran
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 05-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 06-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 08-01-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bara, Rajasthan acquitted both accused persons (Mukesh and Kanta Prasad) on March 16, 2026, finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove the charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 (rash/negligent driving causing injury) and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 3/181, 146/196, 5/180. The court reasoned that key eyewitness testimonies contained serious contradictions regarding the vehicle's registration number, driver's identity, and critical accident details, while the complainant failed to provide consistent account, creating reasonable doubt favorable 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 Bara, Rajasthan acquitted both accused persons (Mukesh and Kanta Prasad) on March 16, 2026, finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove the charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 (rash/negligent driving causing injury) and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 3/181, 146/196, 5/180. The court reasoned that key eyewitness testimonies contained serious contradictions regarding the vehicle's registration number, driver's identity, and critical accident details, while the complainant failed to provide consistent account, creating reasonable doubt favorable 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