THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs ASHOKBHAI PRAHALADBHAI CHUNARA — 96/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAH090001742026
Filing Number
96/2026
Filing Date
20-01-2026
Registration No
96/2026
Registration Date
20-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, SANAND
Judge
3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11192015251301
Police Station
CHANGDODAR POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ASHOKBHAI PRAHALADBHAI CHUNARA
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
| 03-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
| 23-02-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: C.C. No. 96/2026 The court acquitted the accused (Ashoklai Prabhadbalal Chunara) of charges under IPC Section 65(A)(A) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to provide independent corroboration of witness testimonies, and critical investigative procedures—including drug testing reports and cross-examination of witnesses—were not properly conducted. The court found that the case against the accused could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, despite proceedings under CrPC Section 299 for the accused's absence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C. No. 96/2026 The court acquitted the accused (Ashoklai Prabhadbalal Chunara) of charges under IPC Section 65(A)(A) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to provide independent corroboration of witness testimonies, and critical investigative procedures—including drug testing reports and cross-examination of witnesses—were not properly conducted. The court found that the case against the accused could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, despite proceedings under CrPC Section 299 for the accused's absence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts