THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs MANSUKHBHAI KHATABHAI BARIYA — 524/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN040008292026

e-Filing Number

07-03-2026

Filing Number

524/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

524/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, TALAJA

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

61

Police Station

DATHA 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

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANSUKHBHAI KHATABHAI BARIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Khatabhai Bariya (524/2026) The court convicted the respondent under Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 and IPC Section 66(1) for drunk driving, but reduced the sentence considering his socioeconomic status and family responsibilities. The court imposed a fine of ₹2,100 and simple imprisonment in default, holding that while the guilty plea was voluntary, lenient sentencing was warranted based on mitigating circumstances and established legal principles regarding proportionate punishment. 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

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 524/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Khatabhai Bariya (524/2026) The court convicted the respondent under Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 and IPC Section 66(1) for drunk driving, but reduced the sentence considering his socioeconomic status and family responsibilities. The court imposed a fine of ₹2,100 and simple imprisonment in default, holding that while the guilty plea was voluntary, lenient sentencing was warranted based on mitigating circumstances and established legal principles regarding proportionate punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case