The State vs DALSUKHBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL — 282/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 18th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH040003412026

Filing Number

282/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

282/2026

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

11199024250637

Police Station

HANSOT POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DALSUKHBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: The State v. Dalsukhbhai Narsinhbhai Patel (282/2026) The court convicted the respondent under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 66(1)B of the Prohibition Act based on the respondent's voluntary confession. Rather than imposing the statutory minimum sentence, the court imposed a lenient sentence of a ₹1,000 fine (with 2 days simple imprisonment as default), considering the respondent's clean criminal history, family circumstances, and economic condition, along with established legal principles permitting reduction below minimum sentences. No separate punishment was imposed for the Prohibition Act charge, and seized property was ordered returned. 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. 282/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The State v. Dalsukhbhai Narsinhbhai Patel (282/2026) The court convicted the respondent under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 66(1)B of the Prohibition Act based on the respondent's voluntary confession. Rather than imposing the statutory minimum sentence, the court imposed a lenient sentence of a ₹1,000 fine (with 2 days simple imprisonment as default), considering the respondent's clean criminal history, family circumstances, and economic condition, along with established legal principles permitting reduction below minimum sentences. No separate punishment was imposed for the Prohibition Act charge, and seized property was ordered returned. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case