State of Rajasthan vs Banwari Mogya (W) Advocate - Jitendra Nagar — 396/2015
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 457,380. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. - Criminal Regular
CNR: RJBR020014032014
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
479/2015
Filing Date
19-12-2014
Registration No
396/2015
Registration Date
19-12-2014
Court
CJM ACJM JM Baran HQ
Judge
4-CJM Baran
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
622
Police Station
Sadar Police Station, Baran
Year
2014
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Rajasthan
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
Banwari Mogya (W) Advocate - Jitendra Nagar
Babloo
Adv. Jitendra Nagar
Amresh
Adv. Jitendra Nagar
Suresh
Adv. Jitendra Nagar
Somariya @ Mahendra
Adv. Jitendra Nagar
Hearing History
Judge: 4-CJM Baran
Disposed
Final arguments
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 05-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 25-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 20-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran acquitted accused Bablu and Bunwari under IPC Sections 457, 380, and 411 on March 16, 2026, finding insufficient evidence to prove the theft charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that prosecution witnesses failed to establish the accused's identity or possession of stolen items (silver ornaments and cash) with reliable corroborating evidence, particularly lacking testimony from the key witness and documentary proof of the accused's involvement in the alleged burglary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran acquitted accused Bablu and Bunwari under IPC Sections 457, 380, and 411 on March 16, 2026, finding insufficient evidence to prove the theft charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that prosecution witnesses failed to establish the accused's identity or possession of stolen items (silver ornaments and cash) with reliable corroborating evidence, particularly lacking testimony from the key witness and documentary proof of the accused's involvement in the alleged burglary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts