GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs ISHMAILSHA SON OF AHEMADSHA KALUSHA FAKIR Advocate - M G MALEK — 46/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(2),351(2)(3),352,54. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKH070000562026
Filing Number
46/2026
Filing Date
04-02-2026
Registration No
46/2026
Registration Date
04-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, THASRA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11204060250311
Police Station
THASRA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ISHMAILSHA SON OF AHEMADSHA KALUSHA FAKIR Advocate - M G MALEK
AHEMADSHA KALUSHA FAKIR
Adv. M G MALEK
MUMATAJBIBI WIFE OF AHEMADSHA FAKIR
Adv. M G MALEK
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 12-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 04-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
CASE SUMMARY Case 46/2026 - Government of Gujarat v. Ishmailsha and Others The court acquitted all three accused of charges under IPC Sections 115(2), 351(2)(3), 352, and 54, finding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The government's case alleged the accused assaulted the petitioner during a land dispute on 20 September 2025, but witness testimonies were contradictory, lacked corroborating evidence, and contained major discrepancies regarding the incident's location and sequence of events. The court emphasized that suspicion alone cannot replace legal proof, and where two interpretations exist, the one favoring the accused must be adopted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY Case 46/2026 - Government of Gujarat v. Ishmailsha and Others The court acquitted all three accused of charges under IPC Sections 115(2), 351(2)(3), 352, and 54, finding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The government's case alleged the accused assaulted the petitioner during a land dispute on 20 September 2025, but witness testimonies were contradictory, lacked corroborating evidence, and contained major discrepancies regarding the incident's location and sequence of events. The court emphasized that suspicion alone cannot replace legal proof, and where two interpretations exist, the one favoring the accused must be adopted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts