THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs GANAPATBHAI BABUBHAI KO.PATEL — 3750/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAH090053492025
Filing Number
3750/2025
Filing Date
21-Nov-2025
Registration No
3750/2025
Registration Date
21-Nov-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, SANAND
Judge
2-2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
Last updated 15-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11192003220319
Police Station
Sanand GIDC Police Station
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondent(s)
-
1.GANAPATBHAI BABUBHAI KO.PATEL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary The court convicted Ganpatbhai Babubhai Koli Patel under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and IPC Section 185, but imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment and fines rather than the maximum prescribed punishment. The court considered the accused's impoverished background, family circumstances, lack of prior criminal history, and promise of future good conduct as mitigating factors warranting reduced sentencing, citing established judicial precedent that permits courts to impose lighter sentences when substantial and special reasons exist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC
-
11-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC
-
03-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC
-
03-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC
-
03-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC
-
03-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC
-
29-Dec-2025
Process To Accused
2Nd Addl CIVIL Judge & JMFC
-
18-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 3750/2025
Summary The court convicted Ganpatbhai Babubhai Koli Patel under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and IPC Section 185, but imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment and fines rather than the maximum prescribed punishment. The court considered the accused's impoverished background, family circumstances, lack of prior criminal history, and promise of future good conduct as mitigating factors warranting reduced sentencing, citing established judicial precedent that permits courts to impose lighter sentences when substantial and special reasons exist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts