Government of Gujarat vs BHARA KHERAJBHAI SINDHIYA Advocate - J V SOLANKI — 3132/2025

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65-A-A. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTA on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW020043392025

Filing Number

3132/2025

Filing Date

16-Dec-2025

Registration No

3132/2025

Registration Date

16-Dec-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT, KHAMBHALIA

Judge

4-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTA

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11185007250341

Police Station

SALAYA POLICE STATION – DEVBHUMI DWARKA @ KHAMBHALIYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65-A-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHARA KHERAJBHAI SINDHIYA Advocate - J V SOLANKI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    The court dismissed the petition filed by the Government of Gujarat against the respondent advocate. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused with sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and independent corroboration, rendering the charge under the Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a) unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 09-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 12-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 16-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 16-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3132/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the petition filed by the Government of Gujarat against the respondent advocate. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused with sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and independent corroboration, rendering the charge under the Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a) unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case