Govt. of West Bengal vs Divya Prakash Rai and fifteen others — 873/2014
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 143/186. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 30th March 2026.
Gr Case
CNR: WBDJ020003542014
Filing Number
9159/2013
Filing Date
11-08-2014
Registration No
873/2014
Registration Date
11-08-2014
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling
Judge
5-CJM
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
16
Police Station
PULBAZAR
Year
2013
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govt. of West Bengal
Respondent(s)
Divya Prakash Rai and fifteen others
Hearing History
Judge: 5-CJM
Disposed
Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C
Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C |
| 25-02-2026 | Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C |
| 19-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 05-12-2025 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling acquitted 14 accused persons of charges under IPC Sections 143/186 (rioting and obstructing public servant) in a case involving a gathering at the BDO office during a GJMM party strike in July 2013. The court found the prosecution failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole witness (complainant) provided no specific evidence identifying any accused person's individual role in the alleged wrongful restraint, and the materials on record were insufficient to prove the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling acquitted 14 accused persons of charges under IPC Sections 143/186 (rioting and obstructing public servant) in a case involving a gathering at the BDO office during a GJMM party strike in July 2013. The court found the prosecution failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole witness (complainant) provided no specific evidence identifying any accused person's individual role in the alleged wrongful restraint, and the materials on record were insufficient to prove the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts