THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs AJAYBHAI JENTIBHAI DABHI Advocate - R S BHALIYA — 1026/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN050014002025
Filing Number
1026/2025
Filing Date
15-May-2025
Registration No
1026/2025
Registration Date
15-May-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, MAHUVA
Judge
3-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
11198070250200
Police Station
MAHUVA RURAL POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.AJAYBHAI JENTIBHAI DABHI Advocate - R S BHALIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
Order
The Gujarat High Court convicted respondent Ajaybhai Jentibhai Dabhi under IPC Section 275 (Prohibition Act offense) and sentenced him to a fine of ₹100, with 5 days simple imprisonment as default. The court considered the respondent's poor financial condition, family dependence, and first-time offense as special reasons to impose the minimum sentence rather than maximum punishment, noting that jail imprisonment would adversely affect his family's welfare. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Mar-2026
Plea
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Dec-2025
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
18-Nov-2025
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
13-Sep-2025
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
06-Sep-2025
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
28-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
15-May-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1026/2025
The Gujarat High Court convicted respondent Ajaybhai Jentibhai Dabhi under IPC Section 275 (Prohibition Act offense) and sentenced him to a fine of ₹100, with 5 days simple imprisonment as default. The court considered the respondent's poor financial condition, family dependence, and first-time offense as special reasons to impose the minimum sentence rather than maximum punishment, noting that jail imprisonment would adversely affect his family's welfare. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts