The State vs DIPAKBHAI BHAYJIBHAI RATHOD — 274/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B,85(1). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH040003332026

Filing Number

274/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

274/2026

Registration Date

17-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, HANSOT

Judge

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

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11199024250647

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.DIPAKBHAI BHAYJIBHAI RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Order

    Case Summary: 274/2026 The court convicted respondent Dipakbhai Bhayjibhai Rathod under BNS Section 264 after he voluntarily confessed to charges under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1). Considering the accused's clean criminal record, family circumstances, economic situation, and voluntary admission of guilt, the court exercised discretion to impose a sentence lighter than the statutory minimum—ordering time served plus a fine of ₹100, with an alternative of 2 days simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  4. 22-Apr-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  5. 18-Apr-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 274/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 274/2026 The court convicted respondent Dipakbhai Bhayjibhai Rathod under BNS Section 264 after he voluntarily confessed to charges under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1). Considering the accused's clean criminal record, family circumstances, economic situation, and voluntary admission of guilt, the court exercised discretion to impose a sentence lighter than the statutory minimum—ordering time served plus a fine of ₹100, with an alternative of 2 days simple imprisonment 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