STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs surendra kumar Advocate - GIRIRAJ SINGH TANWAR — 1707/2015
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th April 2026.
REG. CRI. CASE
CNR: RJSK120006352015
Filing Number
601137/2015
Filing Date
20-Nov-2015
Registration No
1707/2015
Registration Date
20-Nov-2015
Court
ACJM RINGUS TALUKA HQ
Judge
1-Acjm
Decision Date
16-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 05-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
53
Police Station
Reengus Thana
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Adv. app
Respondent(s)
-
1.surendra kumar Advocate - GIRIRAJ SINGH TANWAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Apr-2026
JudgementView PDF
Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted Surendra (age 33) of theft charges under IPC Section 379, finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he stole complainant Dinesh Kumar's motorcycle (Registration No. RJ 23 SDC 9988). While the evidence established the motorcycle was stolen, the court determined no credible witness testimony or documentary evidence directly connected the accused to the theft, resulting in acquittal with benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Apr-2026
Disposed
Acjm
-
10-Apr-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
28-Mar-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
17-Mar-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
10-Mar-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
24-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
11-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
04-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
19-Jan-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
12-Dec-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
28-Oct-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
24-Sep-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
20-Aug-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
24-Jul-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
09-Jun-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
01-May-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
29-Mar-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
14-Feb-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
26-Nov-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
05-Oct-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
01-Jun-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
26-Mar-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
15-Dec-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
31-Aug-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
18-Apr-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
13-Dec-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
15-Sep-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
08-Aug-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
05-Jul-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
12-May-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
11-Apr-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Acjm
-
29-Jan-2022
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Nov-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Aug-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Apr-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Dec-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
31-Aug-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Aug-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Jun-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
30-May-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Mar-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Jan-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Dec-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Sep-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
30-Aug-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Jun-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Apr-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Feb-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
13-Dec-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
26-Oct-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
14-Aug-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
25-May-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Feb-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Dec-2017
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Oct-2017
For examination of witnesses
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
08-Aug-2017
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Jul-2017
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Jun-2017
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Apr-2017
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
15-Mar-2017
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
01-Feb-2017
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Nov-2016
Prosecution Evidence
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
26-Oct-2016
Charge
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Sep-2016
Charge
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Jul-2016
Awaiting Warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
11-May-2016
Awaiting Warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
03-May-2016
Charge
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Mar-2016
Charge
Addl. Sr. Civil Judge
-
29-Jan-2016
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Nov-2015
Case filed
Registration No. 1707/2015
Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted Surendra (age 33) of theft charges under IPC Section 379, finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he stole complainant Dinesh Kumar's motorcycle (Registration No. RJ 23 SDC 9988). While the evidence established the motorcycle was stolen, the court determined no credible witness testimony or documentary evidence directly connected the accused to the theft, resulting in acquittal with benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts