THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs GOMIBEN PRAVINBHAI MANUBHAI VASAVA — 628/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030009632026

Filing Number

628/2026

Filing Date

30-Jan-2026

Registration No

628/2026

Registration Date

30-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

11199021251466

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.GOMIBEN PRAVINBHAI MANUBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case 628/2026 Summary The State of Gujarat v. Gomiben Pravinbhai Manubhai Vasava The court convicted the respondent under IPC Section 264 and sentenced her to imprisonment for 2 days with a fine of ₹200 (or 2 days additional imprisonment in default). Considering the respondent's status as a poor, middle-class woman from a disadvantaged background with dependent children and her remorse, the court imposed a lenient sentence rather than the maximum punishment, citing precedent that mitigating circumstances warrant reduced sentences to rehabilitate offenders and maintain family welfare. 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. 06-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 30-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 628/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 628/2026 Summary The State of Gujarat v. Gomiben Pravinbhai Manubhai Vasava The court convicted the respondent under IPC Section 264 and sentenced her to imprisonment for 2 days with a fine of ₹200 (or 2 days additional imprisonment in default). Considering the respondent's status as a poor, middle-class woman from a disadvantaged background with dependent children and her remorse, the court imposed a lenient sentence rather than the maximum punishment, citing precedent that mitigating circumstances warrant reduced sentences to rehabilitate offenders and maintain family welfare. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case