THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs IRFAN HUSAIN GULAM HUSAIN KOKRI — 3807/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 285. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAR020053882025

Filing Number

3807/2025

Filing Date

17-Dec-2025

Registration No

3807/2025

Registration Date

17-Dec-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT, MODASA

Judge

5-2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

642

Police Station

MODASA POLICE STATION – ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 285

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.IRFAN HUSAIN GULAM HUSAIN KOKRI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court allowed the accused Irfan Husain Gulam Husain Kokri's petition for sentence reduction under CrPC Section 275, modifying his original sentence to Rs. 100 fine with simple imprisonment of two days. The court found that the Additional Sessions Judge failed to consider relevant mitigating circumstances (accused's poor economic status, family dependence, and first-time offence) and applied precedent law permitting sentence modification in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 22-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 17-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3807/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed the accused Irfan Husain Gulam Husain Kokri's petition for sentence reduction under CrPC Section 275, modifying his original sentence to Rs. 100 fine with simple imprisonment of two days. The court found that the Additional Sessions Judge failed to consider relevant mitigating circumstances (accused's poor economic status, family dependence, and first-time offence) and applied precedent law permitting sentence modification in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case