THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs UPENDRAKUMAR RAMANBHAI VASAVA — 126/2026
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKH110001602026
e-Filing Number
06-01-2026
Filing Number
126/2026
Filing Date
20-02-2026
Registration No
126/2026
Registration Date
20-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, KHEDA
Judge
1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
FIR Details
FIR Number
714
Police Station
KHEDA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondent(s)
UPENDRAKUMAR RAMANBHAI VASAVA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Upendrakumar Ramanbhai Vasava (126/2026) The court convicted the respondent under Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 and Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for driving a vehicle on a highway without maintaining orderly conduct while under the influence of alcohol. The respondent voluntarily confessed to the offense and cooperated with the investigation. Considering the respondent's impoverished economic status, first offense, genuine remorse, and family dependence, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 2,500 fine instead of maximum punishment, finding lighter punishment serves justice better. Additionally, 5 days simple imprisonment was imposed in default of fine payment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Upendrakumar Ramanbhai Vasava (126/2026) The court convicted the respondent under Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 and Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for driving a vehicle on a highway without maintaining orderly conduct while under the influence of alcohol. The respondent voluntarily confessed to the offense and cooperated with the investigation. Considering the respondent's impoverished economic status, first offense, genuine remorse, and family dependence, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 2,500 fine instead of maximum punishment, finding lighter punishment serves justice better. Additionally, 5 days simple imprisonment was imposed in default of fine payment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts