Government of Gujarat vs EBRHIMSHA AYUSHA RAFAI — 57/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65,A,A. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN080000682026

Filing Number

57/2026

Filing Date

05-Jan-2026

Registration No

57/2026

Registration Date

05-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KESHOD

Judge

1-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203030240806

Police Station

KESHOD POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.EBRHIMSHA AYUSHA RAFAI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court sentenced the accused, Ibrahim Ashraf Rafai, to a fine of Rs. 500 under the Bombay Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(1), with an alternative simple imprisonment of two days if the fine is not paid. The court also ordered confiscation of seized valuables and property, cancellation of bail bonds, and return of vehicle to its rightful owner, while considering the accused's poor economic circumstances and family responsibilities as mitigating factors for the reduced sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 21-Apr-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 17-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 05-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 57/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court sentenced the accused, Ibrahim Ashraf Rafai, to a fine of Rs. 500 under the Bombay Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(1), with an alternative simple imprisonment of two days if the fine is not paid. The court also ordered confiscation of seized valuables and property, cancellation of bail bonds, and return of vehicle to its rightful owner, while considering the accused's poor economic circumstances and family responsibilities as mitigating factors for the reduced sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case