THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs AJAYBHAI DILIPBHAI CHUNARA — 94/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAH090001712026

Filing Number

94/2026

Filing Date

19-Jan-2026

Registration No

94/2026

Registration Date

19-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, SANAND

Judge

3-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 15-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11192015251343

Police Station

CHANGDODAR POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AJAYBHAI DILIPBHAI CHUNARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: C.C. No. 94/2026 The court acquitted the accused, Ajayabhai Hitipabhai Chinar, of charges under IPC Section 85(a)(a) (molestation). The court found insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as prosecution witnesses could not corroborate the allegations, and no independent evidence was available on record to support the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 03-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 10-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 29-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 19-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 94/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.C. No. 94/2026 The court acquitted the accused, Ajayabhai Hitipabhai Chinar, of charges under IPC Section 85(a)(a) (molestation). The court found insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as prosecution witnesses could not corroborate the allegations, and no independent evidence was available on record to support the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case