SIKANDERBHAI ALIAS SIKO ABBASBHAI ALIAS FAKIRBHAI NIZAMBHAI MALEK vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT — 18/2025

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 16th May 2026.

Case disposed

CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL

CNR: GJKH010002392025

Filing Number

18/2025

Filing Date

09-Jan-2025

Registration No

18/2025

Registration Date

09-Jan-2025

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD

Judge

6-3rd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

16-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415
Indian Penal Code Section 354(A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SIKANDERBHAI ALIAS SIKO ABBASBHAI ALIAS FAKIRBHAI NIZAMBHAI MALEK

    Adv. H C DHARIYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT

  2. 2.Sairabanu D/o Aabikbhai Malek

    Adv. M M SHEKH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-May-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: CRA 18/2025 Court Decision: The appeal filed by Sikanderbhai (appellant/accused) against his conviction under IPC Section 354(A)(1)(i) for sexual harassment was rejected and dismissed. The trial court's conviction and sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment plus ₹10,000 fine (or 30 days additional imprisonment if fine unpaid) was upheld and affirmed. Key Reasoning: The appellate court found that the complainant (victim) provided credible testimony establishing that the accused made unwanted sexual advances, used obscene language, made indecent physical contact, and attempted to forcibly take her inside the house. Supporting witness testimony from family members and independent investigating officers corroborated the complainant's account. The court found no procedural errors in the trial court's judgment and concluded the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, noting that in sexual harassment cases, independent corroborating witnesses are often unavailable given the circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-May-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Addl District Judge

  4. 02-May-2026

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  5. 18-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  6. 27-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  8. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  9. 23-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  10. 05-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  11. 12-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  12. 29-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  13. 03-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  14. 04-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  15. 06-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  16. 15-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  17. 11-Aug-2025

    For R&P

    3rd Addl District Judge

  18. 23-Jul-2025

    For R&P

    3rd Addl District Judge

  19. 25-Jun-2025

    For R&P

    3rd Addl District Judge

  20. 11-Jun-2025

    For R&P

    3rd Addl District Judge

  21. 25-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District Judge

  22. 17-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District Judge

  23. 10-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 09-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 18/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRA 18/2025 Court Decision: The appeal filed by Sikanderbhai (appellant/accused) against his conviction under IPC Section 354(A)(1)(i) for sexual harassment was rejected and dismissed. The trial court's conviction and sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment plus ₹10,000 fine (or 30 days additional imprisonment if fine unpaid) was upheld and affirmed. Key Reasoning: The appellate court found that the complainant (victim) provided credible testimony establishing that the accused made unwanted sexual advances, used obscene language, made indecent physical contact, and attempted to forcibly take her inside the house. Supporting witness testimony from family members and independent investigating officers corroborated the complainant's account. The court found no procedural errors in the trial court's judgment and concluded the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, noting that in sexual harassment cases, independent corroborating witnesses are often unavailable given the circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case