THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs YOGITABEN ASHISHBHAI MANUBHAI VASAVA — 614/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030009482026

Filing Number

614/2026

Filing Date

30-Jan-2026

Registration No

614/2026

Registration Date

30-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR

Judge

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

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11199021251394

Police Station

ANKLESHWAR G.I.D.C. 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.YOGITABEN ASHISHBHAI MANUBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court acquitted Yogitaben Ashishbhai Manubhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a) due to insufficient evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the panchnama (official record) properly, as the witnesses were all police officers rather than independent witnesses, and the drug testing report was not presented as evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 07-May-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 04-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 20-Apr-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 06-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 30-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 614/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted Yogitaben Ashishbhai Manubhai Vasava of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a) due to insufficient evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the panchnama (official record) properly, as the witnesses were all police officers rather than independent witnesses, and the drug testing report was not presented as evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case