Government of Gujarat vs NEMABHAI NATHABHAI BHARADA Advocate - B S KOTWAL — 209/2023

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AE,116B,98(2),81,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 07th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAR030002232023

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

209/2023

Filing Date

30-01-2023

Registration No

209/2023

Registration Date

30-01-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, BHILODA

Judge

2-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

07th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

357

Police Station

BHILODA POLICE STATION – ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AE,116B,98(2),81,

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

NEMABHAI NATHABHAI BHARADA Advocate - B S KOTWAL

DASHRATH CHANDULAL GAMETI

Adv. B S KOTWAL

NAVINBHAI HANSAJI BHAT

Adv. S J ASARI

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

07-04-2026

Disposed

30-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

27-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

25-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

24-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

Final Orders / Judgements

07-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court acquitted three accused persons under the Prohibition Act, finding that the prosecution failed to establish a clear case against them. The court held that the evidence was incomplete and circumstantial, noting that crucial procedural requirements—such as proper witness testimony and documentation regarding the seized alcohol bottles—were not satisfied, making it impossible to presume guilt or connect the accused to the alleged offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted three accused persons under the Prohibition Act, finding that the prosecution failed to establish a clear case against them. The court held that the evidence was incomplete and circumstantial, noting that crucial procedural requirements—such as proper witness testimony and documentation regarding the seized alcohol bottles—were not satisfied, making it impossible to presume guilt or connect the accused to the alleged offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, BHILODA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case