THE STATE OF GUJARAT ALANG POLICE STATION vs MAHENDRASINH SANTUBHA GOHIL — 292/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(b),85(1),85(2). Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN040004902026

e-Filing Number

03-02-2026

Filing Number

292/2026

Filing Date

12-Feb-2026

Registration No

292/2026

Registration Date

12-Feb-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

17

Police Station

ALANG POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(b),85(1),85(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT ALANG POLICE STATION

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAHENDRASINH SANTUBHA GOHIL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 292/2026 The Talaja Judicial Magistrate Court discharged respondent Mahendrasinh Santubha Gohil by stopping proceedings under CrPC Section 258, finding that the accused could not be located despite repeated summons and warrants. The court held that since the accused failed to appear before the court, it was appropriate to terminate the criminal case against him under the provisions allowing discharge when an accused remains absent. 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. 12-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 12-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 292/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 292/2026 The Talaja Judicial Magistrate Court discharged respondent Mahendrasinh Santubha Gohil by stopping proceedings under CrPC Section 258, finding that the accused could not be located despite repeated summons and warrants. The court held that since the accused failed to appear before the court, it was appropriate to terminate the criminal case against him under the provisions allowing discharge when an accused remains absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case