THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAHULBHAI BALAVANTBHAI CHUNARA — 112/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAH090001902026
Filing Number
112/2026
Filing Date
20-Jan-2026
Registration No
112/2026
Registration Date
20-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
11192015251204
Police Station
CHANGDODAR POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAHULBHAI BALAVANTBHAI CHUNARA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary The court acquitted the accused Rahul Banavtlai Chunara in Criminal Case No. 112/2026 under IPC Section 65(a)(a), finding insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that despite examining prosecution witnesses, no independent corroborating evidence was presented, and the accused's absence during trial (under CrPC Section 299) prevented proper cross-examination, making conviction unjustifiable under fundamental criminal law principles requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Mar-2026
Judgement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 112/2026
Summary The court acquitted the accused Rahul Banavtlai Chunara in Criminal Case No. 112/2026 under IPC Section 65(a)(a), finding insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that despite examining prosecution witnesses, no independent corroborating evidence was presented, and the accused's absence during trial (under CrPC Section 299) prevented proper cross-examination, making conviction unjustifiable under fundamental criminal law principles requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts