Government of Gujarat vs GIRISHKUMAR SHANTIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - B K PARMAR — 279/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(2),296(2),54. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK060003362026

Filing Number

279/2026

Filing Date

19-Feb-2026

Registration No

279/2026

Registration Date

19-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DEODAR

Judge

4-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11996003260016

Police Station

DEODAR POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(2),296(2),54

Petitioner(s)

1.Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

1.GIRISHKUMAR SHANTIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - B K PARMAR
2.GEETABEN W/O SHANTIBHAI PARMAR

Adv. B K PARMAR
3.LILABHAI AALABHAI PARMAR

Adv. B K PARMAR

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
13-Mar-2026

JudegementView PDF

Summary The court acquitted the three accused of charges under BNS Sections 115(2), 288(2), and 74 (related to criminal intimidation and voluntarily causing hurt). The judge found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's testimony was contradicted by other witness accounts and lacked sufficient corroboration to establish the crime conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
13-Mar-2026

Disposed

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
11-Mar-2026

Further Statement

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
09-Mar-2026

Evidence Of Prosecution

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
05-Mar-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
19-Feb-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 279/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the three accused of charges under BNS Sections 115(2), 288(2), and 74 (related to criminal intimidation and voluntarily causing hurt). The judge found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's testimony was contradicted by other witness accounts and lacked sufficient corroboration to establish the crime conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.