Government of Gujarat vs Bharatbhai Laxmanbhai Patel Advocate - J A TUNIYA — 4181/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 285,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 07th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDH030048832025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

4181/2025

Filing Date

10-12-2025

Registration No

4181/2025

Registration Date

10-12-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, DEVGADHBARIA

Judge

2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

07th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11821052251252

Police Station

PIPLOD POLICE STATION - DAHOD DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 285,

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Bharatbhai Laxmanbhai Patel Advocate - J A TUNIYA

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

07-03-2026

Disposed

28-02-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

12-02-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

16-01-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

26-12-2025

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

07-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court acquitted the accused under Indian Penal Code Section 285 (rash or negligent conduct with fire) as the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The judge found that while the complainant identified the accused, the key allegation—that the accused kept his vehicle obstructingly parked on a public road endangering commuters—was not sufficiently established by evidence. The court granted the accused the benefit of doubt and ordered his release with bail to continue for six months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the accused under Indian Penal Code Section 285 (rash or negligent conduct with fire) as the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The judge found that while the complainant identified the accused, the key allegation—that the accused kept his vehicle obstructingly parked on a public road endangering commuters—was not sufficiently established by evidence. The court granted the accused the benefit of doubt and ordered his release with bail to continue for six months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DEVGADHBARIA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case