The State of Gujarat vs GAJENDRASINH @ GAJENDRABHAI HARISANGBHAI @BABUBHAI RATHOD Advocate - P M RATHOD — 714/2021

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 384,385,386,504,506(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 02nd May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBT050009862021

Filing Number

714/2021

Filing Date

08-Dec-2021

Registration No

714/2021

Registration Date

08-Dec-2021

Court

TALUKA COURT, BARWALA

Judge

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

Decision Date

02-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11190001200286

Police Station

BARVALA POLICE STATION – BOTAD DISTRICT

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 384,385,386,504,506(2)
Gujarat Money Landers Act, 2011 Section 40, 42

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of Gujarat

    Adv. M A YADAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GAJENDRASINH @ GAJENDRABHAI HARISANGBHAI @BABUBHAI RATHOD Advocate - P M RATHOD

  2. 2.RAJENDRASINH@ RAJUBHAI RAMDEVSINH PARMAR

    Adv. P M RATHOD

  3. 3.BAVKUBHAI BAHADURBHAI DHANDHAL

    Adv. P M RATHOD

  4. 4.RAVIRAJBHAI @ BHAGIRATHBHAI BABBHAI KHACHAR

    Adv. P M RATHOD

  5. 5.NATUBHAI BABABHAI SALEWALA

    Adv. P M RATHOD

  6. 6.YUNUSHBHAI @ FINIO JAMALBHAI BAVANAKA

    Adv. P M RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-May-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: Criminal Case 714/2021 Court Decision: The Gujarat High Court acquitted all six accused persons under IPC sections 384, 385, 386, 504, 506(2) and Moneylenders Act sections 40, 42. The prosecution failed to prove charges of criminal intimidation, extortion, and threats arising from a property dispute where the complainant alleged accused persons demanded money and threatened land confiscation. Key Reasoning: The court found critical gaps in prosecution evidence: complainant provided no documentary proof of receiving threats, no credible corroboration from independent witnesses, contradictions in witness testimonies regarding when threats were made, and absence of evidence showing accused obtained property illegally. The court applied the principle that circumstantial suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for concrete proof beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-May-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 21-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 22-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 26-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 27-Oct-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 08-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 19-Aug-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 30-Jul-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 15-Jul-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 30-Jun-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 23-Jun-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 12-May-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 15-Apr-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 17-Mar-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 10-Feb-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 10-Dec-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 13-Nov-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 09-Oct-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 09-Sep-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 05-Aug-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 10-Jul-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 10-Jun-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  28. 03-Jun-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  29. 08-May-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  30. 09-Apr-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  31. 18-Mar-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  32. 27-Feb-2024

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  33. 06-Feb-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  34. 16-Jan-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  35. 02-Jan-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  36. 12-Dec-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  37. 08-Nov-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  38. 18-Oct-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  39. 26-Sep-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  40. 05-Sep-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  41. 07-Aug-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  42. 18-Jul-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  43. 27-Jun-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  44. 13-Jun-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  45. 16-May-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  46. 17-Apr-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  47. 21-Mar-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  48. 24-Feb-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  49. 08-Feb-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  50. 24-Jan-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  51. 11-Jan-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  52. 29-Dec-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  53. 13-Dec-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  54. 10-Nov-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  55. 12-Oct-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  56. 15-Sep-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  57. 08-Sep-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  58. 20-Aug-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  59. 12-Jul-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  60. 06-Jun-2022

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  61. 05-May-2022

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  62. 28-Mar-2022

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  63. 23-Mar-2022

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  64. 05-Feb-2022

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  65. 17-Jan-2022

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  66. 31-Dec-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  67. 08-Dec-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 714/2021

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: Criminal Case 714/2021 Court Decision: The Gujarat High Court acquitted all six accused persons under IPC sections 384, 385, 386, 504, 506(2) and Moneylenders Act sections 40, 42. The prosecution failed to prove charges of criminal intimidation, extortion, and threats arising from a property dispute where the complainant alleged accused persons demanded money and threatened land confiscation. Key Reasoning: The court found critical gaps in prosecution evidence: complainant provided no documentary proof of receiving threats, no credible corroboration from independent witnesses, contradictions in witness testimonies regarding when threats were made, and absence of evidence showing accused obtained property illegally. The court applied the principle that circumstantial suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for concrete proof beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case