THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs MAHENDRABHAI ALIAS MONTU S/O KIRANBHAI PASABHAI TALPADA Advocate - V A TALPADA — 1714/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(2),351(4),352,54. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 25th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH020026492025

Filing Number

1714/2025

Filing Date

17-Mar-2025

Registration No

1714/2025

Registration Date

17-Mar-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT NADIAD

Judge

2-Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

Decision Date

25-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11204046241049

Police Station

NADIAD TOWN POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(2),351(4),352,54

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAHENDRABHAI ALIAS MONTU S/O KIRANBHAI PASABHAI TALPADA Advocate - V A TALPADA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-May-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: CC.1714/2025 The State of Gujarat filed criminal charges against Mahendrabhai (alias Montu) and others under IPC sections 115(2), 351(4), 352, and 54, alleging violence and criminal intimidation during an ATM incident at Nadiad. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as key prosecution witnesses (including the complainant) did not support the charges and their testimonies contradicted the case. Applying established criminal jurisprudence that the burden rests solely on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the accused for insufficient evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-May-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  4. 20-May-2026

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  5. 21-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  6. 02-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  8. 11-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  9. 20-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  10. 10-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  11. 06-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  12. 14-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  13. 18-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  14. 25-Aug-2025

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  15. 04-Jul-2025

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  16. 03-Jun-2025

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  17. 28-Apr-2025

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  18. 24-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  19. 17-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1714/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.1714/2025 The State of Gujarat filed criminal charges against Mahendrabhai (alias Montu) and others under IPC sections 115(2), 351(4), 352, and 54, alleging violence and criminal intimidation during an ATM incident at Nadiad. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as key prosecution witnesses (including the complainant) did not support the charges and their testimonies contradicted the case. Applying established criminal jurisprudence that the burden rests solely on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the accused for insufficient evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case