Government of Gujarat vs GANDALAL NARAYANDAS PATEL Advocate - S M RATHOD — 39/2021

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 323,504,506(2),114. Status: Evidence Of Prosecution. Next hearing: 01st July 2026.

Evidence Of Prosecution Next hearing 01-Jul-2026 this date has passed

ATRO - SPECIAL CASE - ATRO

CNR: GJGN010036742021

Filing Number

39/2021

Filing Date

08-Dec-2021

Registration No

39/2021

Registration Date

08-Dec-2021

Court

DISTRICT COURT, GANDHINAGAR

Judge

4-5th Addl District Judge

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11216009210545

Police Station

MANSA POLICE STATION - GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 323,504,506(2),114
Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Trocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(1)(R)(S),3(2)(5-A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. DGP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GANDALAL NARAYANDAS PATEL Advocate - S M RATHOD

  2. 2.YOGESHKUMAR GANDABHAI PATEL

    Adv. S M RATHOD

  3. 3.JITENDRAKUMAR GANDABHAI PATEL

    Adv. S M RATHOD

  4. 4.JAYDEEP JITENDRABHAI PATEL

    Adv. S M RATHOD

Case History

  1. 01-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 20-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    5th Addl District Judge

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  4. 02-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  5. 17-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  6. 29-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  7. 17-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  8. 30-Jul-2025

    Order

    Case Summary: 39/2021 Outcome: The petition filed by the Government of Gujarat seeking further investigation under CrPC Section 173(8) was dismissed. The court rejected the state's request for additional investigation, finding no valid grounds to reopen the case. The judge noted multiple procedural and technical deficiencies in the petition, including incomplete evidence submission, absence of proper case details, and failure to comply with investigative requirements. The court determined the petition was not maintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  9. 30-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  10. 01-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  11. 10-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  12. 28-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  13. 10-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

  14. 27-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  15. 23-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  16. 18-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  17. 07-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  18. 18-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  19. 27-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  20. 22-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  21. 19-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  22. 20-May-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  23. 12-Apr-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  24. 11-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  25. 08-Feb-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  26. 11-Jan-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  27. 12-Dec-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  28. 04-Nov-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  29. 17-Oct-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  30. 04-Oct-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  31. 23-Sep-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  32. 17-Aug-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  33. 17-Jul-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  34. 15-Jun-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  35. 09-May-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  36. 12-Apr-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  37. 06-Apr-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  38. 24-Mar-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  39. 24-Feb-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  40. 08-Feb-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  41. 27-Dec-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  42. 22-Nov-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  43. 13-Oct-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  44. 20-Sep-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  45. 25-Aug-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  46. 12-Jul-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  47. 27-Jun-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  48. 30-May-2022

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  49. 13-May-2022

    Process To Accused

    3rd Addl District Judge

  50. 24-Mar-2022

    Process To Accused

    3rd Addl District Judge

  51. 17-Feb-2022

    Process To Accused

    3rd Addl District Judge

  52. 11-Jan-2022

    Process To Accused

    3rd Addl District Judge

  53. 08-Jan-2022

    Process To Accused

    3rd Addl District Judge

  54. 08-Dec-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  55. 08-Dec-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 39/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 39/2021 Outcome: The petition filed by the Government of Gujarat seeking further investigation under CrPC Section 173(8) was dismissed. The court rejected the state's request for additional investigation, finding no valid grounds to reopen the case. The judge noted multiple procedural and technical deficiencies in the petition, including incomplete evidence submission, absence of proper case details, and failure to comply with investigative requirements. The court determined the petition was not maintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case