THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs BALUSINH BHAVANSINH VAGHELA Advocate - V I BHARVAD — 17/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A),(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 21st April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAR060000232026
Filing Number
17/2026
Filing Date
05-01-2026
Registration No
17/2026
Registration Date
05-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, DHANSURA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
21st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
50689
Police Station
DHANSURA POLICE STATION – ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
BALUSINH BHAVANSINH VAGHELA Advocate - V I BHARVAD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 03-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 21-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 07-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC No. 17/2026 The State of Gujarat v. Balusinh Bhavansinh Vaghela The court acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act after finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the panch witnesses (mandatory independent witnesses required during liquor seizures) did not corroborate the police's version of events, and without such independent corroboration, a conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated police testimony. The seized liquor samples were not properly handled according to prescribed rules, and critical procedural requirements were not met. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC No. 17/2026 The State of Gujarat v. Balusinh Bhavansinh Vaghela The court acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act after finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the panch witnesses (mandatory independent witnesses required during liquor seizures) did not corroborate the police's version of events, and without such independent corroboration, a conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated police testimony. The seized liquor samples were not properly handled according to prescribed rules, and critical procedural requirements were not met. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts