STATE OF GUJARAT vs AJAYBHAI ALIAS JAID MAHESHBHAI RAJ Advocate - S K BHAVSAR — 15/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 140(4),117(2),115(2),352,351(3),54. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 22nd April 2026.

Case disposed

ATRO - SPECIAL CASE - ATRO

CNR: GJKH010049862025

Filing Number

15/2025

Filing Date

22-Jul-2025

Registration No

15/2025

Registration Date

22-Jul-2025

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD

Judge

5-4th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

22-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11204068250241

Police Station

VADTAL POLICE STATION – KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 140(4),117(2),115(2),352,351(3),54
Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Trocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(1)(R),3(1)(S),3(2)(5-A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. Y K BAROT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AJAYBHAI ALIAS JAID MAHESHBHAI RAJ Advocate - S K BHAVSAR

  2. 2.CHIRAGKUMAR ALIAS BADI DILIPBHAI PATEL

    Adv. S K BHAVSAR

  3. 3.PAVANKUMAR ALIAS PANNO MANOHARLAL SHARMA

    Adv. S K BHAVSAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 22-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    SUMMARY: State of Gujarat v. Ajaybhai & Others (Special Atrocity Case 15/2025) Court's Decision: All three accused (Ajaybhai alias Jaid Maheshbhai Raj, Chiragkumar alias Badi Dilipbhai Patel, and Pavankumar alias Panno Manoharlal Sharma) were acquitted and discharged of charges under BNS Sections 140(4), 117(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 54, and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Sections 3(1)(R)(S) and 3(2)(P-A). Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Despite accusations of assault, abduction, use of an iron rod to cause injury (including fracture to the complainant's thumb), and caste-based verbal abuse, the key witnesses—including the complainant himself and his wife—admitted during cross-examination that they could not identify who specifically used the weapon, could not confirm which individuals made caste-based slurs, and could not establish deliberate intent. The complainant acknowledged the injuries resulted from falling during a crowd scuffle rather than direct weapon assault. The absence of independent eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence linking accused to specific acts rendered the prosecution's case insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    4th Addl District Judge

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  5. 01-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  6. 24-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  7. 13-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  8. 12-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    4th Addl District Judge

  9. 24-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

    4th Addl District Judge

  10. 09-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  11. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  12. 12-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  13. 29-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  14. 05-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  15. 14-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  16. 18-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  17. 04-Oct-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    4th Addl District Judge

  18. 12-Sep-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    4th Addl District Judge

  19. 30-Aug-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    4th Addl District Judge

  20. 18-Aug-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    4th Addl District Judge

  21. 02-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 22-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 15/2025

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: State of Gujarat v. Ajaybhai & Others (Special Atrocity Case 15/2025) Court's Decision: All three accused (Ajaybhai alias Jaid Maheshbhai Raj, Chiragkumar alias Badi Dilipbhai Patel, and Pavankumar alias Panno Manoharlal Sharma) were acquitted and discharged of charges under BNS Sections 140(4), 117(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 54, and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Sections 3(1)(R)(S) and 3(2)(P-A). Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Despite accusations of assault, abduction, use of an iron rod to cause injury (including fracture to the complainant's thumb), and caste-based verbal abuse, the key witnesses—including the complainant himself and his wife—admitted during cross-examination that they could not identify who specifically used the weapon, could not confirm which individuals made caste-based slurs, and could not establish deliberate intent. The complainant acknowledged the injuries resulted from falling during a crowd scuffle rather than direct weapon assault. The absence of independent eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence linking accused to specific acts rendered the prosecution's case insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case