State of Gujarat vs NANUBEN HARIBHAI GOHEL — 530/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS020008812026

Filing Number

530/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

530/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Court, Veraval

Judge

15-Addl. CIVIL Judge

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11186009260106

Police Station

VERAVAL POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NANUBEN HARIBHAI GOHEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Nanuben Haribhai Gohel (530/2026) The court found the accused Nanuben guilty under BNS Section 279 (rash or negligent act endangering life) after she voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" are required to impose sentences below the statutory minimum, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹500 fine and imprisonment until court rising (instead of the prescribed minimum), considering the accused's financial condition and circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. CIVIL Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 530/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Nanuben Haribhai Gohel (530/2026) The court found the accused Nanuben guilty under BNS Section 279 (rash or negligent act endangering life) after she voluntarily confessed to the charges. Applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" are required to impose sentences below the statutory minimum, the court imposed a lenient sentence of ₹500 fine and imprisonment until court rising (instead of the prescribed minimum), considering the accused's financial condition and circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case