State vs Ravi prakash Advocate - M.I.Khan — 2/2016

Case under Arms Act Section 4,25. Disposed: Uncontested--Convicted and Released on Probation on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

Arms Act - Rajasthan Arms Act

CNR: RJBR130006242016

Filing Number

709/2016

Filing Date

02-Dec-2016

Registration No

2/2016

Registration Date

02-Dec-2016

Court

JM Kishanganj Taluka

Judge

1-Jm

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Convicted and Released on Probation

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

165

Police Station

Nahargarh Police Station

Year

2016

Acts & Sections

Arms Act Section 4,25

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. APO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ravi prakash Advocate - M.I.Khan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Judicial Magistrate convicted accused Raviprakash under Section 4/25 of the Ayush Act based on his voluntary confession. However, considering that the accused is poor, this is his first offense, he has no prior criminal conviction, and he voluntarily confessed in the spirit of Lok Adalat, the court sentenced him to probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for one year with a bond of Rs. 10,000, rather than imposing imprisonment. The court also imposed prosecution costs of Rs. 50 on the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Jm

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  5. 04-Feb-2026

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  6. 27-Jan-2026

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  7. 28-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  8. 11-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  9. 10-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  10. 30-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  11. 19-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  12. 21-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  13. 18-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  14. 31-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  15. 03-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  16. 28-Feb-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  17. 06-Dec-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  18. 04-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  19. 11-Jul-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  20. 06-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  21. 21-Oct-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  22. 18-Aug-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  23. 30-May-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  24. 06-Dec-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  25. 13-Sep-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  26. 11-May-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  27. 23-Feb-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  28. 26-Nov-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  29. 16-Jul-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  30. 05-Feb-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  31. 28-Nov-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  32. 26-Aug-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  33. 24-Apr-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  34. 18-Feb-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  35. 03-Dec-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  36. 15-Oct-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  37. 21-Jul-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  38. 25-May-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  39. 26-Apr-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  40. 12-Dec-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  41. 16-Aug-2017

    Jm

  42. 22-May-2017

    Jm

  43. 20-Feb-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  44. 02-Dec-2016

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2/2016

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate convicted accused Raviprakash under Section 4/25 of the Ayush Act based on his voluntary confession. However, considering that the accused is poor, this is his first offense, he has no prior criminal conviction, and he voluntarily confessed in the spirit of Lok Adalat, the court sentenced him to probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for one year with a bond of Rs. 10,000, rather than imposing imprisonment. The court also imposed prosecution costs of Rs. 50 on the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case