State vs MUKESH KUMAR Advocate - SH. MAHIPAL DORATA — 1056/2018
Case under Explosives Act Section 5,9B. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJJH070017232018
Filing Number
1715/2018
Filing Date
12-12-2018
Registration No
1056/2018
Registration Date
12-12-2018
Court
ACJM MJM Khetri Taluka HQ
Judge
2-ACJM
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
406
Police Station
KHETRI
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. APP1
Respondent(s)
MUKESH KUMAR Advocate - SH. MAHIPAL DORATA
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ACJM
Disposed
Final arguments
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 05-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 04-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 25-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Mukesh Kumar (Case 1056/2018) The court acquitted defendant Mukesh Kumar of charges under Sections 5 and 9(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884, due to insufficient evidence. Despite seizure of 226 gelignite cartridges, detonators, and fuses from land plot 14/04 on August 24, 2018, the court found critical procedural gaps: no documentary proof that the seizure location belonged to the accused, no authentic land deed presented, and no evidence confirming the accused's actual control over the property where explosives were discovered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State v. Mukesh Kumar (Case 1056/2018) The court acquitted defendant Mukesh Kumar of charges under Sections 5 and 9(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884, due to insufficient evidence. Despite seizure of 226 gelignite cartridges, detonators, and fuses from land plot 14/04 on August 24, 2018, the court found critical procedural gaps: no documentary proof that the seizure location belonged to the accused, no authentic land deed presented, and no evidence confirming the accused's actual control over the property where explosives were discovered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts