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.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBT050009862021
Filing Number
714/2021
Filing Date
08-12-2021
Registration No
714/2021
Registration Date
08-12-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, BARWALA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
02nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11190001200286
Police Station
BARVALA POLICE STATION – BOTAD DISTRICT
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Gujarat
Adv. M A YADAV
Respondent(s)
GAJENDRASINH @ GAJENDRABHAI HARISANGBHAI @BABUBHAI RATHOD Advocate - P M RATHOD
RAJENDRASINH@ RAJUBHAI RAMDEVSINH PARMAR
Adv. P M RATHOD
BAVKUBHAI BAHADURBHAI DHANDHAL
Adv. P M RATHOD
RAVIRAJBHAI @ BHAGIRATHBHAI BABBHAI KHACHAR
Adv. P M RATHOD
NATUBHAI BABABHAI SALEWALA
Adv. P M RATHOD
YUNUSHBHAI @ FINIO JAMALBHAI BAVANAKA
Adv. P M RATHOD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 15-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 16-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 16-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 21-01-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts