THE STATE OF GUJARAT ALANG POLICE STATION vs BRIJRAJSIH URFE BIJUBHA JYAPALSIH GOHIL — 158/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN040002172026

e-Filing Number

12-01-2026

Filing Number

158/2026

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

158/2026

Registration Date

16-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, TALAJA

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1

Police Station

ALANG POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT ALANG POLICE STATION

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BRIJRAJSIH URFE BIJUBHA JYAPALSIH GOHIL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court stopped proceedings against the accused under CrPC Section 258 and acquitted him of charges under IPC Sections 185 and 66(1), as the accused could not be produced despite repeated summons and warrants. The government and APP were directed to maintain the accused's details to prevent future re-prosecution, and any prior orders regarding seized property were affirmed or modified as necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 07-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 16-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 16-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 158/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court stopped proceedings against the accused under CrPC Section 258 and acquitted him of charges under IPC Sections 185 and 66(1), as the accused could not be produced despite repeated summons and warrants. The government and APP were directed to maintain the accused's details to prevent future re-prosecution, and any prior orders regarding seized property were affirmed or modified as necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case