THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs KEVALSINH KAPURSINH VAGHELA — 405/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B),85(1). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK130004552026

Filing Number

405/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

405/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT-DANTIWADA

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

65

Police Station

DANTIWADA POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B),85(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KEVALSINH KAPURSINH VAGHELA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary: The Dantiwada court in Gujarat convicted Kevalsinh Kapursinh Vaghela under IPC Section 54(1)B (a property-related offense) and sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹200, with one day's simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid. The court considered the accused's plea of guilt, his status as a poor person dependent on family support, this being his first offense, and his assurance against future crimes, thereby imposing a lenient sentence rather than the maximum penalty prescribed by law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 405/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Dantiwada court in Gujarat convicted Kevalsinh Kapursinh Vaghela under IPC Section 54(1)B (a property-related offense) and sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹200, with one day's simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine remains unpaid. The court considered the accused's plea of guilt, his status as a poor person dependent on family support, this being his first offense, and his assurance against future crimes, thereby imposing a lenient sentence rather than the maximum penalty prescribed by law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case