State vs DEENDAYAL — 274/2023
Case under Arms Act Section 4/25. Disposed: Uncontested--Convicted and Released on Probation on 10th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJBR130004252023
Filing Number
424/2023
Filing Date
23-May-2023
Registration No
274/2023
Registration Date
23-May-2023
Court
JM Kishanganj Taluka
Judge
1-Jm
Decision Date
10-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Convicted and Released on Probation
Last updated 05-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
69
Police Station
Nahargarh Police Station
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State
Adv. APO
Respondent(s)
-
1.DEENDAYAL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate convicted accused Dinandyal (31 years) under Section 4/25 of the Ayush Act based on his voluntary confession. However, considering he is a poor first-time offender who confessed in the spirit of public justice, the court released him on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for 6 months with a bond of ₹5,000, rather than imposing imprisonment. The court also imposed prosecution costs of ₹50. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Mar-2026
Orders
Jm
-
10-Mar-2026
Restored
Jm
-
10-Mar-2026
Disposed
Jm
-
05-Mar-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
04-Mar-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
09-Jan-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
08-Sep-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
20-May-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
18-Feb-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
08-Nov-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
01-Jul-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
09-Apr-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Jm
-
21-Oct-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-May-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 274/2023
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate convicted accused Dinandyal (31 years) under Section 4/25 of the Ayush Act based on his voluntary confession. However, considering he is a poor first-time offender who confessed in the spirit of public justice, the court released him on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for 6 months with a bond of ₹5,000, rather than imposing imprisonment. The court also imposed prosecution costs of ₹50. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts