THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs ARVINDBHAI JIVANBHAI GOHIL Advocate - N.M.KHASIYA — 13/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 454,380,511,457. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 15th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAH230000312018
Filing Number
13/2018
Filing Date
22-02-2018
Registration No
13/2018
Registration Date
22-02-2018
Court
Taluka Court, Dholera
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
15th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11
Police Station
DHOLERA POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ARVINDBHAI JIVANBHAI GOHIL Advocate - N.M.KHASIYA
SANJAYBHAI @ GABBAR JAGDISHBHAI BARAIYA
MANU @ MANOJ KARAMSHIBHAI SOLANKI
SHANTIBHAI MERUBHA JADAV
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 18-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 11-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 04-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Dholera Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted all four accused persons of charges under IPC sections 454, 457, 380, and 411 for attempted theft at an ATM of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur on March 23-24, 2016. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's witnesses provided no direct evidence of the accused's involvement, and the investigation relied primarily on police custody confessions without corroborating evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Dholera Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted all four accused persons of charges under IPC sections 454, 457, 380, and 411 for attempted theft at an ATM of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur on March 23-24, 2016. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's witnesses provided no direct evidence of the accused's involvement, and the investigation relied primarily on police custody confessions without corroborating evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts