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

Case disposed

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

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 379(A)

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

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

10-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

DISTRICT COURT, MODASA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case