THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs DIPAKBHAI ALIAS DIPLO ARVINDBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A M CHAUHAN — 2/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),87,64(2)(M),65(1). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 28th April 2026.
PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO
CNR: GJAR010002192026
Filing Number
2/2026
Filing Date
21-01-2026
Registration No
2/2026
Registration Date
21-01-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT, MODASA
Judge
1-ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
767
Police Station
BAYAD POLICE STATION – ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. D S PATEL
Respondent(s)
DIPAKBHAI ALIAS DIPLO ARVINDBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A M CHAUHAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 22-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 10-04-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 27-03-2026 | DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of POKSO Case No. 02/2026 (Gujarat) Court Decision: The defendant Dipakbhai Arvindbhai Parmar was acquitted of all charges under IPC Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), 65(1) and POCSO Act Sections 4,6,8,12. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to establish that the alleged victim was a minor at the time of the incident, and could not prove non-consensual conduct or abduction. Medical and victim testimony revealed consensual relations between the accused and the 18-year-old victim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of POKSO Case No. 02/2026 (Gujarat) Court Decision: The defendant Dipakbhai Arvindbhai Parmar was acquitted of all charges under IPC Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), 65(1) and POCSO Act Sections 4,6,8,12. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to establish that the alleged victim was a minor at the time of the incident, and could not prove non-consensual conduct or abduction. Medical and victim testimony revealed consensual relations between the accused and the 18-year-old victim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts