THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs JITUBHAI KHODUBHAI BHADALIYA — 286/2026

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: GJGS080003682026

Filing Number

286/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

286/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, GIRGADHADA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11186001260143

Police Station

GIR GADHADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JITUBHAI KHODUBHAI BHADALIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Jitubhai Khodubhai Bhadaliya (Case 282/2026) The accused was charged under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 66(1)(b). The accused voluntarily confessed to the crime before the court. Considering the voluntary nature of the confession, the accused's first offense status, and his family responsibilities, the court convicted him and imposed a lenient sentence of a fine of ₹100, with an alternative imprisonment of 2 days if the fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 286/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Jitubhai Khodubhai Bhadaliya (Case 282/2026) The accused was charged under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 66(1)(b). The accused voluntarily confessed to the crime before the court. Considering the voluntary nature of the confession, the accused's first offense status, and his family responsibilities, the court convicted him and imposed a lenient sentence of a fine of ₹100, with an alternative imprisonment of 2 days if the fine remains unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case