THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs DAKSHABEN SUKLAL FATESINGBHAI VASAVA — 629/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030009642026

Filing Number

629/2026

Filing Date

30-Jan-2026

Registration No

629/2026

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

11199021251469

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.DAKSHABEN SUKLAL FATESINGBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted respondent Dakshaben Suklal Fatesingbhai Vasava under IPC Section 264 and sentenced her to imprisonment for 2 days and a fine of ₹200 (or 2 days additional imprisonment in default). The court found that while the accused committed the offense, her circumstances—being a poor, middle-class woman with dependents and expressing remorse—warranted lenient punishment rather than maximum sentence. 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. 629/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted respondent Dakshaben Suklal Fatesingbhai Vasava under IPC Section 264 and sentenced her to imprisonment for 2 days and a fine of ₹200 (or 2 days additional imprisonment in default). The court found that while the accused committed the offense, her circumstances—being a poor, middle-class woman with dependents and expressing remorse—warranted lenient punishment rather than maximum sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case