State of Gujarat vs HARESHBHAI DHIRAJLAL VAGHELA — 534/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 285. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS020008852026

Filing Number

534/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

534/2026

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

11186009260042

Police Station

VERAVAL POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 285

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HARESHBHAI DHIRAJLAL VAGHELA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Hareshbhai Dhirajlal Vaghela (534/2026) The accused, Hareshbhai Dhirajlal Vaghela, pleaded guilty to charges under BNS Section 217. The court, applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" must exist to impose sentences below statutory minimums, found such reasons present based on the case record, the accused's financial condition, and his plea for mercy. The court convicted the accused and imposed a lenient sentence of ₹1,000 fine with imprisonment until court closure, or one day simple imprisonment in default of payment. 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. 534/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Hareshbhai Dhirajlal Vaghela (534/2026) The accused, Hareshbhai Dhirajlal Vaghela, pleaded guilty to charges under BNS Section 217. The court, applying the principle that "special and adequate reasons" must exist to impose sentences below statutory minimums, found such reasons present based on the case record, the accused's financial condition, and his plea for mercy. The court convicted the accused and imposed a lenient sentence of ₹1,000 fine with imprisonment until court closure, or one day simple imprisonment in default of payment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case