THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs VIJAYBHAI HARTANBHAI TALPADA Advocate - R D CHAUHAN — 891/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 184,177,134. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 18th May 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH020011292026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

26-02-2026

Filing Number

891/2026

Filing Date

27-02-2026

Registration No

891/2026

Registration Date

27-02-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT NADIAD

Judge

6-5th ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

18th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11204045250551

Police Station

NADIAD RURAL POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 184,177,134
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 125(a),125(b),281

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

VIJAYBHAI HARTANBHAI TALPADA Advocate - R D CHAUHAN

Hearing History

Judge: 6-5th ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

18-05-2026

Disposed

30-04-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

16-04-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

12-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

18-05-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: C.C.NO.891/2026 The court acquitted defendant Vijaybhai Hartanbhai Talpada of charges under BNS 2023 sections 281, 125(a), 125(b) and MV Act sections 177, 184, finding that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the defendant's negligent driving caused the accident. Though the defendant's vehicle was involved in a collision injuring three persons, the court noted the complainant and witnesses could not definitively establish the defendant's rash or negligent conduct, and reasonable doubt existed regarding liability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.C.NO.891/2026 The court acquitted defendant Vijaybhai Hartanbhai Talpada of charges under BNS 2023 sections 281, 125(a), 125(b) and MV Act sections 177, 184, finding that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the defendant's negligent driving caused the accident. Though the defendant's vehicle was involved in a collision injuring three persons, the court noted the complainant and witnesses could not definitively establish the defendant's rash or negligent conduct, and reasonable doubt existed regarding liability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL COURT NADIAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case