Jagdish Sharma vs Rambabu — 7/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 447,427,323. Disposed: Uncontested--Convicted on Plead Guilty / Plea Bargaining on 25th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJPG070000172019
Filing Number
17/2019
Filing Date
04-Jan-2019
Registration No
7/2019
Registration Date
04-Jan-2019
Court
ACJM TALUKACOURT CHHOTISADARI
Judge
9-Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Convicted on Plead Guilty / Plea Bargaining
Last updated 16-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
117
Police Station
CHHOTISADRI
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Jagdish Sharma
Adv. SH. SANJAY KHIMESARA
Respondent(s)
-
1.Rambabu
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
The court dismissed the petition filed under Section 323 IPC against the accused. The court found that the accused's conduct did not constitute deliberate and wrongful restraint as alleged, and that the evidence presented by the petitioner was insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court declined to grant relief under the Anticipatory Bail provision and directed that the petitioner has no grounds for the relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Mar-2026
Disposed
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
09-Mar-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
27-Nov-2025
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
09-Sep-2025
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
19-May-2025
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
08-Apr-2025
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
28-Jan-2025
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
23-Oct-2024
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
03-May-2024
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
20-Nov-2023
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
08-Sep-2023
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
29-Apr-2023
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
04-Jan-2023
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
02-Dec-2022
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
23-May-2022
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
22-Feb-2022
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
26-Nov-2021
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
31-Aug-2021
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
19-Jun-2021
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
19-Mar-2021
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
20-Jan-2021
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
24-Nov-2020
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
07-Oct-2020
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
31-Jul-2020
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
30-May-2020
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
28-Feb-2020
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
21-Dec-2019
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
05-Oct-2019
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
27-Aug-2019
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
23-Jul-2019
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
25-Jun-2019
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
14-May-2019
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
01-Apr-2019
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
26-Feb-2019
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
08-Jan-2019
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Acjm
-
04-Jan-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Jan-2019
Case filed
Registration No. 7/2019
The court dismissed the petition filed under Section 323 IPC against the accused. The court found that the accused's conduct did not constitute deliberate and wrongful restraint as alleged, and that the evidence presented by the petitioner was insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court declined to grant relief under the Anticipatory Bail provision and directed that the petitioner has no grounds for the relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts