THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs ASHOKBHAI BACHUBHAI GOHIL Advocate - M Y PATEL — 767/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH050008972025
Filing Number
767/2025
Filing Date
15-04-2025
Registration No
767/2025
Registration Date
15-04-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, VAGRA
Judge
1-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
696
Police Station
WAGRA POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondent(s)
ASHOKBHAI BACHUBHAI GOHIL Advocate - M Y PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 12-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 20-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 23-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 767/2025 The State of Gujarat v. Ashokbhai Bachubhai Gohil The court acquitted the respondent of drunk driving charges, finding fatal infirmities in the prosecution's case. The blood alcohol level (0.0918%) exceeded the legal limit, but the court ruled that mandatory procedural requirements under the Bombay Prohibition Rules were violated: the doctor failed to personally add anticoagulant and preservative to the blood sample as required, instead receiving a pre-prepared phial from the laboratory without proper verification. Additionally, critical investigative details—witness names and addresses—were omitted from the FIR, and only police witnesses testified rather than independent witnesses. The court held these violations vitiated the conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 767/2025 The State of Gujarat v. Ashokbhai Bachubhai Gohil The court acquitted the respondent of drunk driving charges, finding fatal infirmities in the prosecution's case. The blood alcohol level (0.0918%) exceeded the legal limit, but the court ruled that mandatory procedural requirements under the Bombay Prohibition Rules were violated: the doctor failed to personally add anticoagulant and preservative to the blood sample as required, instead receiving a pre-prepared phial from the laboratory without proper verification. Additionally, critical investigative details—witness names and addresses—were omitted from the FIR, and only police witnesses testified rather than independent witnesses. The court held these violations vitiated the conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts