THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs VIPULBHAI RUPABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - V V JADAV — 96/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN120001212026

e-Filing Number

21-01-2026

Filing Number

96/2026

Filing Date

03-Feb-2026

Registration No

96/2026

Registration Date

03-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, VALLABHIPUR

Judge

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

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 27-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198065250470

Police Station

VALLABHIPUR POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VIPULBHAI RUPABHAI VAGHELA Advocate - V V JADAV

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Vipulbhai Rupabhai Vaghela (96/2026) The Principal Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was selling illicit liquor from his premises, as the case relied heavily on police witnesses whose testimony lacked independent corroboration and critical procedural gaps existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 03-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 03-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 96/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Vipulbhai Rupabhai Vaghela (96/2026) The Principal Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was selling illicit liquor from his premises, as the case relied heavily on police witnesses whose testimony lacked independent corroboration and critical procedural gaps existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case