THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs MIRABEN (URFE) BAKIBEN SATISHBHAI LAKSHMANBHAI VASAVA — 4881/2025

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 02nd April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030100792025

Filing Number

4881/2025

Filing Date

06-Dec-2025

Registration No

4881/2025

Registration Date

06-Dec-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR

Judge

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

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11199061250707

Police Station

ANKLESHWAR CITY B DIVISION 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.MIRABEN (URFE) BAKIBEN SATISHBHAI LAKSHMANBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court acquitted respondent Miraben under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the panchnama (official record) properly, as the panelists could not testify credibly about the seized contraband, and the chemical analysis report of the confiscated substance was not produced in court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 31-Jan-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 08-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 06-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4881/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted respondent Miraben under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the panchnama (official record) properly, as the panelists could not testify credibly about the seized contraband, and the chemical analysis report of the confiscated substance was not produced in court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case