THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs AARIF MAKBUL SIDDIKI Advocate - S N KUNDIYANA — 831/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,125(A)(B),106(1). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030012932026

Filing Number

831/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

831/2026

Registration Date

11-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR

Judge

3-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11199061260005

Police Station

ANKLESHWAR CITY B DIVISION POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,125(A)(B),106(1)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 177,184,134,187

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AARIF MAKBUL SIDDIKI Advocate - S N KUNDIYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Aarif Makbul Siddiki (831/2026) The court acquitted the accused Aarif Makbul Siddiki under IPC Sections 271(1), 281, 336, and 337. The prosecution failed to establish its case through sufficient evidence; the witnesses could not positively identify the accused or corroborate the alleged rash driving incident that caused injuries to the victim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 831/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Aarif Makbul Siddiki (831/2026) The court acquitted the accused Aarif Makbul Siddiki under IPC Sections 271(1), 281, 336, and 337. The prosecution failed to establish its case through sufficient evidence; the witnesses could not positively identify the accused or corroborate the alleged rash driving incident that caused injuries to the victim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case