THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SHAHBAZ AHEMAD URFE SHEBU SHAKIL AHEMAD HABIBRAHEMAN SHEKH Advocate - S G SAIYAD — 2706/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318(4),61. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH020048632025

e-Filing Number

23-05-2025

Filing Number

2706/2025

Filing Date

09-Jun-2025

Registration No

2706/2025

Registration Date

09-Jun-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT NADIAD

Judge

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

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11204046250324

Police Station

NADIAD TOWN POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318(4),61

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHAHBAZ AHEMAD URFE SHEBU SHAKIL AHEMAD HABIBRAHEMAN SHEKH Advocate - S G SAIYAD

  2. 2.SAHIBAZ MIYA ALIAS BACHCHAN MEHBOOBMIYA SIKANDERMIYA MALEK

    Adv. S G SAIYAD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: C.C.No.2706/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted both accused (Shahbaz Ahmad and Sahibaz Miya) of charges under IPC Sections 318(4) and 61 (cheating/fraud). The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused fraudulently sold the complainant's vehicle worth ₹2,50,000 without payment. Key Reasoning: The complainant's oral testimony lacked corroborating documentary evidence of the alleged vehicle sale transaction. The court found no written agreement between parties and insufficient evidence to establish premeditated conspiracy. Applying criminal jurisprudence principles, the burden of proof remained on the prosecution throughout, which could not be discharged. Both accused were acquitted and granted bail under CrPC Section 481. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  7. 19-Feb-2026

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  8. 03-Feb-2026

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  9. 07-Jan-2026

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  10. 08-Dec-2025

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  11. 18-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  12. 04-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  13. 25-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  14. 12-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  15. 08-Sep-2025

    Plea

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  16. 21-Jul-2025

    Plea

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  17. 13-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  18. 09-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2706/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.C.No.2706/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted both accused (Shahbaz Ahmad and Sahibaz Miya) of charges under IPC Sections 318(4) and 61 (cheating/fraud). The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused fraudulently sold the complainant's vehicle worth ₹2,50,000 without payment. Key Reasoning: The complainant's oral testimony lacked corroborating documentary evidence of the alleged vehicle sale transaction. The court found no written agreement between parties and insufficient evidence to establish premeditated conspiracy. Applying criminal jurisprudence principles, the burden of proof remained on the prosecution throughout, which could not be discharged. Both accused were acquitted and granted bail under CrPC Section 481. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case