THE STATE OF GUJARAT DATHA POLICE STATION vs NITINBHAI POPATBHAI BHALIYA — 1809/2025

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN040031512025

e-Filing Number

21-11-2025

Filing Number

1809/2025

Filing Date

28-Nov-2025

Registration No

1809/2025

Registration Date

28-Nov-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, TALAJA

Judge

6-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

291

Police Station

DATHA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a)

Petitioner(s)

1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT DATHA POLICE STATION

Respondent(s)

1.NITINBHAI POPATBHAI BHALIYA

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
14-Mar-2026

OrderView PDF

Case Summary: 1809/2025 The court convicted respondent Nitinbhai Popatbhai Bhaliya under IPC Section 65(a)(a) for criminal intimidation but reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment rather than rigorous imprisonment, considering his status as the sole breadwinner of a poor family. The court imposed a fine of ₹100 and ordered the case appeal to be dismissed, while noting that appropriate lighter punishment was warranted based on the circumstances and mitigating factors presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
14-Mar-2026

Disposed

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
13-Mar-2026

Order

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
05-Mar-2026

Process To Accused

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
02-Feb-2026

Process To Accused

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
29-Dec-2025

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
28-Nov-2025

Case filed

Registration No. 1809/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 1809/2025 The court convicted respondent Nitinbhai Popatbhai Bhaliya under IPC Section 65(a)(a) for criminal intimidation but reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment rather than rigorous imprisonment, considering his status as the sole breadwinner of a poor family. The court imposed a fine of ₹100 and ordered the case appeal to be dismissed, while noting that appropriate lighter punishment was warranted based on the circumstances and mitigating factors presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.