THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs AYAN ANISHMIYA PATHAN Advocate - G M PATEL — 5/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: GJAR010000072026
Filing Number
5/2026
Filing Date
01-01-2026
Registration No
5/2026
Registration Date
01-01-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT, MODASA
Judge
1-ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
550
Police Station
MODASA POLICE STATION – ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. R J BHATI
Respondent(s)
AYAN ANISHMIYA PATHAN Advocate - G M PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 28-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 16-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Sessions 5/2026 Court Decision: The accused, Ayan Anishmiya Pathan, is acquitted of charges under IPC Section 379 (theft). The court found insufficient evidence to prove the alleged mobile phone theft beyond reasonable doubt, as the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of custody or unambiguous identification of the stolen device. Key Reasoning: Despite witness statements from the accused's relatives and investigating officers, critical evidentiary gaps undermined the case—specifically, the failure to definitively prove the phone seized matched the one allegedly stolen, and conflicting details regarding identification procedures. The court determined that the prosecution's case could not meet the required legal standard of proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sessions 5/2026 Court Decision: The accused, Ayan Anishmiya Pathan, is acquitted of charges under IPC Section 379 (theft). The court found insufficient evidence to prove the alleged mobile phone theft beyond reasonable doubt, as the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of custody or unambiguous identification of the stolen device. Key Reasoning: Despite witness statements from the accused's relatives and investigating officers, critical evidentiary gaps undermined the case—specifically, the failure to definitively prove the phone seized matched the one allegedly stolen, and conflicting details regarding identification procedures. The court determined that the prosecution's case could not meet the required legal standard of proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts