Government of Gujarat vs BHARATSINH PRAVINSINH ALIAS KALUBHA JADEJA — 690/2026
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDW020010132026
Filing Number
690/2026
Filing Date
09-03-2026
Registration No
690/2026
Registration Date
09-03-2026
Court
CIVIL COURT, KHAMBHALIA
Judge
4-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILT
FIR Details
FIR Number
11185004260248
Police Station
JAM KHAMBHALIA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
BHARATSINH PRAVINSINH ALIAS KALUBHA JADEJA
Hearing History
Judge: 4-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: C.C.NO-690-2026 Court Decision: The court convicted Bharatsinh Pravinsinh (alias Kalubha Jadeja) under the Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 and Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for operating a vehicle without a valid permit while intoxicated. He was sentenced to imprisonment and fined ₹2,150, with additional provisions for vehicle confiscation and alternative jail time if the fine remains unpaid. Key Reasoning: The accused voluntarily confessed to the offense, and the court found sufficient evidence supporting the charges. Considering the accused's circumstances as a poor, working-class individual committing his first offense, the court imposed a reduced sentence below the statutory minimum while maintaining proportional punishment and deterrence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C.NO-690-2026 Court Decision: The court convicted Bharatsinh Pravinsinh (alias Kalubha Jadeja) under the Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 and Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for operating a vehicle without a valid permit while intoxicated. He was sentenced to imprisonment and fined ₹2,150, with additional provisions for vehicle confiscation and alternative jail time if the fine remains unpaid. Key Reasoning: The accused voluntarily confessed to the offense, and the court found sufficient evidence supporting the charges. Considering the accused's circumstances as a poor, working-class individual committing his first offense, the court imposed a reduced sentence below the statutory minimum while maintaining proportional punishment and deterrence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts