The State vs RAVINDRABHAI SOMABHAI VASAVA — 273/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B,85(1). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 18th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH040003322026

Filing Number

273/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

273/2026

Registration Date

17-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, HANSOT

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

Decision Date

18-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11199024250568

Police Station

HANSOT POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B,85(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAVINDRABHAI SOMABHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    Order

    Summary of Case 273/2026: The court found respondent Ravindrabhai Somabhai Vasava guilty under BNS Section 264 after he voluntarily confessed to charges filed under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1). Considering the respondent's clean criminal record, family circumstances, voluntary confession, and applying the principle from Natwar Harchand v. State that courts can impose sentences below the statutory minimum based on case circumstances, the court imposed a lenient sentence of time already served plus a fine of ₹100, with two days' simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 273/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 273/2026: The court found respondent Ravindrabhai Somabhai Vasava guilty under BNS Section 264 after he voluntarily confessed to charges filed under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1). Considering the respondent's clean criminal record, family circumstances, voluntary confession, and applying the principle from Natwar Harchand v. State that courts can impose sentences below the statutory minimum based on case circumstances, the court imposed a lenient sentence of time already served plus a fine of ₹100, with two days' simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case