State vs MUKESH KUMAR Advocate - SH. MAHIPAL DORATA — 1056/2018

Case under Explosives Act Section 5,9B. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJJH070017232018

Filing Number

1715/2018

Filing Date

12-Dec-2018

Registration No

1056/2018

Registration Date

12-Dec-2018

Court

ACJM MJM Khetri Taluka HQ

Judge

2-Acjm

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

406

Police Station

KHETRI

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Explosives Act Section 5,9B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. APP1

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MUKESH KUMAR Advocate - SH. MAHIPAL DORATA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    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.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of document.View PDF

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Copy of document.View PDF

  7. 05-Mar-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Acjm

  8. 04-Mar-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Acjm

  9. 25-Feb-2026

    Copy of document.View PDF

  10. 25-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  11. 20-Feb-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Acjm

  12. 17-Feb-2026

    Copy of document.View PDF

  13. 17-Feb-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Acjm

  14. 16-Feb-2026

    Copy of document.View PDF

  15. 16-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  16. 11-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  17. 05-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  18. 29-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  19. 20-Jan-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Acjm

  20. 12-Jan-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Acjm

  21. 22-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  22. 15-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  23. 02-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  24. 29-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  25. 03-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  26. 18-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  27. 21-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  28. 27-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  29. 27-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  30. 30-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  31. 01-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  32. 17-Feb-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  33. 05-Feb-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  34. 12-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  35. 16-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  36. 19-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  37. 01-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  38. 18-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  39. 30-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  40. 28-Jul-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  41. 05-May-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  42. 24-Jan-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  43. 07-Dec-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  44. 18-Aug-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  45. 13-Apr-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  46. 07-Jan-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  47. 30-Sep-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  48. 03-Jul-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  49. 03-Jun-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  50. 09-Mar-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  51. 01-Dec-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  52. 31-Aug-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  53. 17-Jun-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  54. 13-May-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  55. 29-Feb-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  56. 23-Dec-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  57. 10-Oct-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  58. 19-Aug-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  59. 29-May-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  60. 05-Mar-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  61. 16-Feb-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  62. 12-Dec-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1056/2018

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case