Rajesh Kumar vs STATE Advocate - P.P — 142/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing on 08th April 2026.
Cr. Revision
CNR: RJJH010016462025
Filing Number
1357/2025
Filing Date
29-08-2025
Registration No
142/2025
Registration Date
01-09-2025
Court
DJ ADJ Jhunjhunu District HQ
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
08th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajesh Kumar
Adv. Sh. Rajkumar Saini
Respondent(s)
STATE Advocate - P.P
Asharam
Adv. Not available
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 13-02-2026 | Final arguments |
| 02-02-2026 | Final arguments |
| 06-01-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 142/2025 Summary The Session Court, Jhunjhunu set aside the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order dated 21.07.2025 imposing a six-month peace bond on petitioner Rajesh Kumar, finding that mandatory procedural requirements under sections 130 and 133 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (Indian Civil Security Code) were violated. The court held that the lower court failed to provide a summary of the complaint, specify bond details, and furnish a copy of its order with the notice as legally mandated, rendering the order procedurally defective and unenforceable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 142/2025 Summary The Session Court, Jhunjhunu set aside the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order dated 21.07.2025 imposing a six-month peace bond on petitioner Rajesh Kumar, finding that mandatory procedural requirements under sections 130 and 133 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (Indian Civil Security Code) were violated. The court held that the lower court failed to provide a summary of the complaint, specify bond details, and furnish a copy of its order with the notice as legally mandated, rendering the order procedurally defective and unenforceable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts