Government of Gujarat vs RAKESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI RATHOD — 149/2026

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: GJJN080001652026

Filing Number

149/2026

Filing Date

09-Jan-2026

Registration No

149/2026

Registration Date

09-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KESHOD

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203030250809

Police Station

KESHOD POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAKESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Case Summary: 149/2026 The court convicted Rakeshbhai Govindbhai Rathod under Section 275(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for a Bomb Prevention Act violation, sentencing him to a fine of ₹10,045 with alternative imprisonment of 2 days if the fine remains unpaid. The court granted the accused the benefit of probation considering his status as a poor person from a lower economic background and his commitment to reform, while ordering confiscation of seized materials and vehicles involved in the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

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

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

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

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 09-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 149/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 149/2026 The court convicted Rakeshbhai Govindbhai Rathod under Section 275(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for a Bomb Prevention Act violation, sentencing him to a fine of ₹10,045 with alternative imprisonment of 2 days if the fine remains unpaid. The court granted the accused the benefit of probation considering his status as a poor person from a lower economic background and his commitment to reform, while ordering confiscation of seized materials and vehicles involved in the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case