GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs LALBABU SON OF SUDARSHAN KEVAT Advocate - N R SODHAPARMAR — 57/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,125(a),125(b). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 15th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKH070000682026
Filing Number
57/2026
Filing Date
06-Feb-2026
Registration No
57/2026
Registration Date
06-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, THASRA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
15-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 22-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11204060250351
Police Station
THASRA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.LALBABU SON OF SUDARSHAN KEVAT Advocate - N R SODHAPARMAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-May-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Lalbabu (Criminal Case 57/2026) The Gujarat High Court acquitted the accused Lalbabu of charges under IPC Sections 281, 125(A)(B) and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 177, 184, finding insufficient evidence of rash/negligent driving. The prosecution failed to prove the accused drove recklessly; mere negligence doesn't constitute criminal rashness requiring higher culpability. Procedural lapses, inadequate investigation, and inconsistent witness testimonies weakened the case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-May-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Apr-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
02-Apr-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
06-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 57/2026
Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Lalbabu (Criminal Case 57/2026) The Gujarat High Court acquitted the accused Lalbabu of charges under IPC Sections 281, 125(A)(B) and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 177, 184, finding insufficient evidence of rash/negligent driving. The prosecution failed to prove the accused drove recklessly; mere negligence doesn't constitute criminal rashness requiring higher culpability. Procedural lapses, inadequate investigation, and inconsistent witness testimonies weakened the case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts