State vs BALRAM ETC Advocate - PKS — 189/2019

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 392,34. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJBR090006422019

Filing Number

642/2019

Filing Date

12-Jul-2019

Registration No

189/2019

Registration Date

12-Jul-2019

Court

ACJM Shahbad Taluka

Judge

1-Acjm

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 05-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

95

Police Station

Kelwara Police Station

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 392,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. app

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BALRAM ETC Advocate - PKS

  2. 2.NAINA @ GATHIYA @ MEMBER

  3. 3.RAY SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahabad acquitted all four accused (Rajsingh, Balram, Nena Urf Guddu, and Bahadur Singh) on March 23, 2026, in a robbery case (IPC 392/34). The court found insufficient evidence to prove the accused committed the April 22, 2019 dacoity where ₹41,000 and ₹60,000 were allegedly looted from two victims. Key weaknesses included: no proper identification parade of accused, contradictory witness testimonies, lack of witness corroboration of identifications, and procedural deficiencies in the investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  7. 24-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  8. 17-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  9. 06-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  10. 04-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  11. 30-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  12. 19-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  13. 08-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  14. 06-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  15. 28-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  16. 25-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  17. 20-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  18. 26-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  19. 23-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  20. 28-Feb-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  21. 12-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  22. 27-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  23. 23-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  24. 08-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  25. 22-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  26. 19-Mar-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  27. 08-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  28. 17-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  29. 23-Aug-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  30. 05-Jul-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  31. 10-May-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  32. 22-Mar-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  33. 21-Jan-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  34. 08-Dec-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  35. 29-Oct-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  36. 28-Sep-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  37. 31-Aug-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  38. 06-Jun-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  39. 04-May-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  40. 11-Apr-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  41. 17-Jan-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  42. 17-Nov-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  43. 27-Aug-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  44. 19-Jul-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  45. 21-Jun-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  46. 25-May-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  47. 19-Feb-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  48. 26-Nov-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  49. 15-Oct-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  50. 17-Jul-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  51. 22-May-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  52. 18-Feb-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  53. 24-Dec-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  54. 11-Dec-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  55. 27-Nov-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  56. 11-Nov-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  57. 14-Oct-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  58. 03-Oct-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  59. 21-Sep-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  60. 16-Sep-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  61. 02-Sep-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  62. 20-Aug-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  63. 07-Aug-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  64. 25-Jul-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  65. 12-Jul-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 189/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahabad acquitted all four accused (Rajsingh, Balram, Nena Urf Guddu, and Bahadur Singh) on March 23, 2026, in a robbery case (IPC 392/34). The court found insufficient evidence to prove the accused committed the April 22, 2019 dacoity where ₹41,000 and ₹60,000 were allegedly looted from two victims. Key weaknesses included: no proper identification parade of accused, contradictory witness testimonies, lack of witness corroboration of identifications, and procedural deficiencies in the investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case