State (APP) vs ram kalyan Advocate - Mr. Firoj khan — 254/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,325,34. Disposed: Contested--Convicted and Released on Probation on 13th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJJW180003612019
Filing Number
254/2019
Filing Date
16-May-2019
Registration No
254/2019
Registration Date
16-May-2019
Court
ACJM Manoharthana Jhalawar District
Judge
1-Scj and Acjm
Decision Date
13-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Convicted and Released on Probation
Last updated 31-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
75
Police Station
Manoharthana
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State (APP)
Adv. app
Respondent(s)
-
1.ram kalyan Advocate - Mr. Firoj khan
-
2.gulab chand
Adv. Mr. Firoj khan
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Mar-2026
JudgementView PDF
Case Summary: 254/2019 Court Decision (13.03.2026): The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manoharthana, Jhalawad convicted accused Ram Kalyan (age 33) and Gulab Chand (age 46) under IPC Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 325 (causing grievous hurt) with Section 34 (common intention). The court found credible evidence from eyewitness testimony and medical reports establishing that the accused assaulted the complainant Mudanlal on 05.03.2019, causing multiple injuries. However, considering the accused's clean record and other mitigating circumstances, the court granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act rather than imposing imprisonment, requiring a bond of ₹10,000 each and good conduct surety. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Mar-2026
Disposed
Scj and Acjm
-
26-Feb-2026
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Scj and Acjm
-
09-Feb-2026
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Scj and Acjm
-
04-Dec-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
06-Nov-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
09-Oct-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
11-Sep-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
10-Jun-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
27-Mar-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
15-Feb-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
19-Dec-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
29-Oct-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
10-Sep-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
31-Jul-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
12-Jun-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
23-Apr-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
16-Feb-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
04-Jan-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
29-Sep-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
04-Aug-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
27-Jun-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
29-May-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
04-May-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
04-Apr-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
24-Jan-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
03-Jan-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
02-Dec-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
02-Nov-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
01-Oct-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
30-Aug-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
18-Jul-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
22-Apr-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
04-Mar-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
10-Dec-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
31-Jul-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
03-Apr-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
02-Nov-2020
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-May-2019
Case filed
Registration No. 254/2019
Case Summary: 254/2019 Court Decision (13.03.2026): The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manoharthana, Jhalawad convicted accused Ram Kalyan (age 33) and Gulab Chand (age 46) under IPC Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 325 (causing grievous hurt) with Section 34 (common intention). The court found credible evidence from eyewitness testimony and medical reports establishing that the accused assaulted the complainant Mudanlal on 05.03.2019, causing multiple injuries. However, considering the accused's clean record and other mitigating circumstances, the court granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act rather than imposing imprisonment, requiring a bond of ₹10,000 each and good conduct surety. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts