The State vs MAGANBHAI MELJIBHAI RATHOD — 275/2026

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: GJBH040003342026

Filing Number

275/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

275/2026

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

11199024250530

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.MAGANBHAI MELJIBHAI RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    Order

    Case 275/2026 Summary The court convicted respondent Maganbhai Meljibhai Rathod under BNS Section 264 after he voluntarily pleaded guilty to charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1). Considering the accused's clean criminal record, economic circumstances, family responsibilities, and voluntary confession, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment until rising from court and a fine of ₹100, with an alternative of 2 days simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid—exercising discretion to impose a sentence less than the statutory minimum based on established legal precedent. 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. 275/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 275/2026 Summary The court convicted respondent Maganbhai Meljibhai Rathod under BNS Section 264 after he voluntarily pleaded guilty to charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1). Considering the accused's clean criminal record, economic circumstances, family responsibilities, and voluntary confession, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment until rising from court and a fine of ₹100, with an alternative of 2 days simple imprisonment if the fine remains unpaid—exercising discretion to impose a sentence less than the statutory minimum based on established legal precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case