THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs JAYABEN BABUBHAI JAYANTIBHAI VASAVA — 119/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030002132026

Filing Number

119/2026

Filing Date

06-Jan-2026

Registration No

119/2026

Registration Date

06-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR

Judge

7-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11199061250981

Police Station

ANKLESHWAR CITY B DIVISION POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JAYABEN BABUBHAI JAYANTIBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case 119/2026 Summary The State of Gujarat prosecuted Jayaben Babubhai Jayantibhai Vasava under the Indian Penal Code, Section 65 (Bomb offence). The court found the accused guilty but imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of ₹200 (with default imprisonment of 2 days), rather than the maximum punishment. The court considered mitigating factors including the accused's poor economic background, family responsibilities, remorse, and young age, determining that leniency was justified and in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 119/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 119/2026 Summary The State of Gujarat prosecuted Jayaben Babubhai Jayantibhai Vasava under the Indian Penal Code, Section 65 (Bomb offence). The court found the accused guilty but imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of ₹200 (with default imprisonment of 2 days), rather than the maximum punishment. The court considered mitigating factors including the accused's poor economic background, family responsibilities, remorse, and young age, determining that leniency was justified and 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