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
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
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
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts