THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAJESH GANJU RAMESHVAR GANJU — 394/2026

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: GJBN040006212026

e-Filing Number

19-01-2026

Filing Number

394/2026

Filing Date

18-Feb-2026

Registration No

394/2026

Registration Date

18-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

8

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

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJESH GANJU RAMESHVAR GANJU

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 394/2026 The court granted "Stop Proceeding" under CrPC Section 258 and acquitted the accused (Rajesh Ganju Rameshvar Ganju) of charges under IPC Sections 447(1) and 448(1)(2), as the accused could not be produced despite repeated summons and warrants. The government and police were informed of the accused's details, and no future legal impediment would exist to reopen the case if the accused is subsequently found. 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. 28-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 18-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 18-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 394/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 394/2026 The court granted "Stop Proceeding" under CrPC Section 258 and acquitted the accused (Rajesh Ganju Rameshvar Ganju) of charges under IPC Sections 447(1) and 448(1)(2), as the accused could not be produced despite repeated summons and warrants. The government and police were informed of the accused's details, and no future legal impediment would exist to reopen the case if the accused is subsequently found. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case