Govt. of Gujarat vs BHIMBHAI DHIRABHAI BAREEYA — 799/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS040009802026

Filing Number

799/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

799/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, UNA

Judge

7-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11186003260116

Police Station

NAVABANDAR MARINE POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Govt. of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHIMBHAI DHIRABHAI BAREEYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court convicted the accused Bhimbhai Dhirabhhai Baraiya under the Gujarat Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 2016, Section 27(b), after the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense. Following the precedent that "special and adequate reasons" must exist to impose less than minimum sentence, the court imposed a lenient punishment of Rs. 100 fine (with one day simple imprisonment as default) considering the accused's financial condition and prospects for reformation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Lok Adalat

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 799/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused Bhimbhai Dhirabhhai Baraiya under the Gujarat Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 2016, Section 27(b), after the accused voluntarily confessed to the offense. Following the precedent that "special and adequate reasons" must exist to impose less than minimum sentence, the court imposed a lenient punishment of Rs. 100 fine (with one day simple imprisonment as default) considering the accused's financial condition and prospects for reformation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case