THE STATE vs AAKASHBHAI MAFATBHAI PARMAR — 131/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,125(A),125(B). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAH070001712026
Filing Number
131/2026
Filing Date
19-Jan-2026
Registration No
131/2026
Registration Date
19-Jan-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, DHOLKA
Judge
5-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
12-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 15-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11192064250470
Police Station
Dholka Rural Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.AAKASHBHAI MAFATBHAI PARMAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-May-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Akashbhai Maftbhai Parmar, of charges under IPC Sections 281, 337(a), 337(b), and MV Act Sections 177, 184, finding the prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's sole eyewitness testimony lacked credibility—he could not identify the vehicle, driver, or provide specifics about the accident—and later reconciled with the accused, weakening the case substantially. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-May-2026
Disposed
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
11-May-2026
Judgement
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
30-Apr-2026
Process To Accused
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
06-Apr-2026
Process To Accused
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
11-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
04-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.
-
22-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 131/2026
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Akashbhai Maftbhai Parmar, of charges under IPC Sections 281, 337(a), 337(b), and MV Act Sections 177, 184, finding the prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's sole eyewitness testimony lacked credibility—he could not identify the vehicle, driver, or provide specifics about the accident—and later reconciled with the accused, weakening the case substantially. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts