THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs PRADIPBHAI MADHUBHAI SOLANKI Advocate - R S BHALIYA — 1861/2024

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),116(B),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN050026672024

Filing Number

1861/2024

Filing Date

09-Oct-2024

Registration No

1861/2024

Registration Date

09-Oct-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, MAHUVA

Judge

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

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198035240737

Police Station

MAHUVA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A),116(B),81

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRADIPBHAI MADHUBHAI SOLANKI Advocate - R S BHALIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: The State of Gujarat v. Pradipbhai Madhubhai Solanki (C.C.No.1861/2024) The court acquitted respondent Pradipbhai Madhubhai Solanki of charges under the Prohibition Act, finding the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Despite seizure of foreign liquor bottles worth ₹3,000 and witness statements, the prosecution's evidence—primarily from five police witnesses—contained significant gaps: the five panch witnesses were not properly examined, no independent witnesses corroborated the recovery, FSL report on seized liquor was not submitted, and the property chain was not adequately established. The court held the prosecution bore the burden of proving guilt conclusively and absent cogent evidence, the accused's presumption of innocence prevailed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 09-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 05-Jan-2026

    Further Statement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 04-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 10-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 09-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 06-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 25-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 08-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 09-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 09-Jun-2025

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 21-May-2025

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 23-Apr-2025

    Plea

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 21-Feb-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  18. 28-Jan-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  19. 27-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  20. 03-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  21. 18-Nov-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 09-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1861/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The State of Gujarat v. Pradipbhai Madhubhai Solanki (C.C.No.1861/2024) The court acquitted respondent Pradipbhai Madhubhai Solanki of charges under the Prohibition Act, finding the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Despite seizure of foreign liquor bottles worth ₹3,000 and witness statements, the prosecution's evidence—primarily from five police witnesses—contained significant gaps: the five panch witnesses were not properly examined, no independent witnesses corroborated the recovery, FSL report on seized liquor was not submitted, and the property chain was not adequately established. The court held the prosecution bore the burden of proving guilt conclusively and absent cogent evidence, the accused's presumption of innocence prevailed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case