State vs Kuldeep Singh etc. (Phase-V) Advocate - Darshan Singh Brar — 2247/2015

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 394,34. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 22nd April 2026.

Case disposed

Cr.o - Criminal Origanal

CNR: RJSG180000212015

Filing Number

1001252/2015

Filing Date

03-Jan-2015

Registration No

2247/2015

Registration Date

03-Jan-2015

Court

ACJM SADULSAHAR TALUKA

Judge

1-Acjm

Decision Date

22-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

179

Police Station

Lalgarh Jathan Police Station,SGNR

Year

2014

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 394,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Kuldeep Singh etc. (Phase-V) Advocate - Darshan Singh Brar

  2. 2.HARPREET SINGH

    Adv. D.S.BRAR

  3. 3.GURPREET SINGH

  4. 4.FATHE SINGH

    Adv. D.S.BRAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 22-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary of Court Decision The court acquitted all three remaining accused (Fateh Singh, Kuldeep Singh, and Gurpreet Singh) in this dacoity case due to insufficient evidence. Although the complainants claimed their truck was robbed on August 4, 2014, the prosecution failed to establish the charges under Section 394/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidentiary gaps included: no credible eyewitness identification of the accused, contradictory and insufficient recovery evidence with questionable witness testimonies, and weak circumstantial evidence. The court found that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused with certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 21-Apr-2026

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

    Acjm

  5. 18-Apr-2026

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

    Acjm

  6. 15-Apr-2026

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

    Acjm

  7. 10-Apr-2026

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

    Acjm

  8. 07-Apr-2026

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

    Acjm

  9. 28-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  10. 27-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  11. 13-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  12. 12-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  13. 11-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  14. 24-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  15. 23-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  16. 16-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  17. 03-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  18. 27-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  19. 16-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  20. 06-Jan-2026

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  21. 10-Dec-2025

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  22. 06-Nov-2025

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  23. 15-Oct-2025

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  24. 20-Sep-2025

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  25. 09-Sep-2025

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  26. 03-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  27. 27-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  28. 07-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  29. 29-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  30. 22-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  31. 09-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  32. 17-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  33. 02-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  34. 06-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

  35. 15-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  36. 21-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  37. 17-Feb-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  38. 23-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  39. 10-Jan-2025

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  40. 16-Dec-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  41. 19-Nov-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  42. 13-Nov-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  43. 12-Nov-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  44. 24-Oct-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  45. 09-Oct-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  46. 10-Sep-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  47. 05-Sep-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  48. 29-Jul-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  49. 06-Jun-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  50. 13-May-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  51. 06-May-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  52. 28-Mar-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  53. 17-Feb-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  54. 19-Jan-2024

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  55. 19-Dec-2023

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Jm

  56. 25-Oct-2023

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  57. 13-Sep-2023

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  58. 28-Jun-2023

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  59. 16-May-2023

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  60. 24-Feb-2023

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  61. 24-Nov-2022

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  62. 20-Aug-2022

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  63. 20-May-2022

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  64. 25-Feb-2022

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  65. 18-Nov-2021

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  66. 30-Jul-2021

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  67. 05-Jul-2021

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  68. 07-Apr-2021

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  69. 08-Jan-2021

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  70. 28-Sep-2020

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  71. 26-Aug-2020

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  72. 23-Jul-2020

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Acjm

  73. 28-May-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  74. 06-Jan-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  75. 05-Aug-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  76. 15-Apr-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  77. 10-Jan-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  78. 24-Aug-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  79. 21-May-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  80. 22-Feb-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  81. 29-Nov-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  82. 23-Sep-2017

    Evidence

    Acjm

  83. 15-May-2017

    Evidence

    Acjm

  84. 06-Mar-2017

    Evidence

    Acjm

  85. 09-Dec-2016

    Evidence

    Acjm

  86. 21-Sep-2016

    Evidence

    Acjm

  87. 14-Jun-2016

    Evidence

    Acjm

  88. 02-Apr-2016

    Evidence

    Acjm

  89. 21-Mar-2016

    Evidence

    Acjm

  90. 08-Mar-2016

    Evidence

    Acjm

  91. 24-Feb-2016

    Evidence

    Acjm

  92. 11-Feb-2016

    Evidence

    Acjm

  93. 28-Jan-2016

    Evidence

    Acjm

  94. 15-Jan-2016

    Evidence

    Acjm

  95. 02-Jan-2016

    Evidence

    Acjm

  96. 30-Nov-2015

    Evidence

    Acjm

  97. 09-Nov-2015

    Evidence

    Acjm

  98. 02-Nov-2015

    Evidence

    Acjm

  99. 16-Oct-2015

    Argument Of Charge/Oral Charge

    Acjm

  100. 20-Jul-2015

    Argument Of Charge/Oral Charge

    Acjm

  101. 08-Apr-2015

    Argument Of Charge/Oral Charge

    Jm

  102. 26-Mar-2015

    Argument Of Charge/Oral Charge

    Jm

  103. 16-Mar-2015

    Argument Of Charge/Oral Charge

    Jm

  104. 03-Mar-2015

    Argument Of Charge/Oral Charge

    Jm

  105. 18-Feb-2015

    Argument Of Charge/Oral Charge

    Jm

  106. 05-Feb-2015

    Argument Of Charge/Oral Charge

    Jm

  107. 23-Jan-2015

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  108. 03-Jan-2015

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2247/2015

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Court Decision The court acquitted all three remaining accused (Fateh Singh, Kuldeep Singh, and Gurpreet Singh) in this dacoity case due to insufficient evidence. Although the complainants claimed their truck was robbed on August 4, 2014, the prosecution failed to establish the charges under Section 394/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidentiary gaps included: no credible eyewitness identification of the accused, contradictory and insufficient recovery evidence with questionable witness testimonies, and weak circumstantial evidence. The court found that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused with certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case