THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs NAYNABEN PRABHATBHAI FATESING VASAVA — 404/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 13th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH030006492026
Filing Number
404/2026
Filing Date
20-Jan-2026
Registration No
404/2026
Registration Date
20-Jan-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR
Judge
7-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
13-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 27-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11199061250971
Police Station
ANKLESHWAR CITY B DIVISION POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.NAYNABEN PRABHATBHAI FATESING VASAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-May-2026
JudegementView PDF
The court acquitted the respondent, Naynaben Prabhatbhai Fatesing Vasava, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(AA), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the panchas (witnesses) were police officers rather than independent witnesses, their statements lacked credibility and detail, and the seized samples' authenticity could not be properly established, warranting acquittal under IPC Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-May-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-May-2026
Judgement
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-May-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-May-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Apr-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
05-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 404/2026
The court acquitted the respondent, Naynaben Prabhatbhai Fatesing Vasava, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(AA), finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the panchas (witnesses) were police officers rather than independent witnesses, their statements lacked credibility and detail, and the seized samples' authenticity could not be properly established, warranting acquittal under IPC Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts