THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs AJAYKUMR @ GALAT SANGMESHBHAI DARBAR Advocate - S B PATEL — 4484/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 354,354(A),447,427,323,504,506(2),114. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030094202024

Filing Number

4484/2024

Filing Date

17-Sep-2024

Registration No

4484/2024

Registration Date

17-Sep-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR

Judge

4-2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11199061240471

Police Station

ANKLESHWAR CITY B DIVISION POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 354,354(A),447,427,323,504,506(2),114

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AJAYKUMR @ GALAT SANGMESHBHAI DARBAR Advocate - S B PATEL

  2. 2.SAGARKUMAR ASHOKBHAI PATHKAR

  3. 3.RAHULBHAI BHIKHABHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: CC No. 4484/2024 Court Decision: The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted all three accused—Rahulbhai Vasava, Sagarkumar Ashokbhai Pathkar, and Ajaykumar (alias Galat) Sangmeshkumar Darbar—of charges under IPC Section 271 and related sections (353, 354, 448, 427, 323, 504, 506(2), 114). Key Reasoning: The court found insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's case that the accused had assaulted and wrongfully confined the complainant. Despite serious allegations involving midnight home invasion, assault, and threats, the court determined the complainant's testimony lacked corroboration, witness accounts were inconsistent, and physical/documentary evidence failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  7. 15-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  8. 26-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  9. 08-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  10. 01-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  11. 30-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  12. 13-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  13. 15-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  14. 24-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  15. 20-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  16. 07-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  17. 10-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  18. 05-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  19. 28-Oct-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 17-Sep-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4484/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC No. 4484/2024 Court Decision: The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted all three accused—Rahulbhai Vasava, Sagarkumar Ashokbhai Pathkar, and Ajaykumar (alias Galat) Sangmeshkumar Darbar—of charges under IPC Section 271 and related sections (353, 354, 448, 427, 323, 504, 506(2), 114). Key Reasoning: The court found insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's case that the accused had assaulted and wrongfully confined the complainant. Despite serious allegations involving midnight home invasion, assault, and threats, the court determined the complainant's testimony lacked corroboration, witness accounts were inconsistent, and physical/documentary evidence failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case