THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs CHEHRABHAI NAGJIBHAI RAJPUT Advocate - V Y OZA — 329/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(2),296,351(3),54. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 09th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK220004622025
Filing Number
329/2025
Filing Date
28-Oct-2025
Registration No
329/2025
Registration Date
28-Oct-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, SUIGAM
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge
Decision Date
09-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 23-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11195045250210
Police Station
SUIGAM POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.CHEHRABHAI NAGJIBHAI RAJPUT Advocate - V Y OZA
-
2.RAMSING @ RAMABHAI NAGJIBHAI RAJPUT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary The Suigram Magistrate Court acquitted the two accused under IPC Sections 115(2), 296(b), 351(3), and 54, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, and abetment beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the eyewitness testimonies were contradictory and lacked credibility, and no conclusive documentary evidence established that the accused had threatened or physically harmed the complainant as alleged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge
-
06-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge
-
16-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge
-
24-Dec-2025
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge
-
27-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 329/2025
Summary The Suigram Magistrate Court acquitted the two accused under IPC Sections 115(2), 296(b), 351(3), and 54, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, and abetment beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the eyewitness testimonies were contradictory and lacked credibility, and no conclusive documentary evidence established that the accused had threatened or physically harmed the complainant as alleged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts