THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs MAHESHBHAI UDESINH VAGHELA — 130/2026
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKH110001642026
e-Filing Number
15-12-2025
Filing Number
130/2026
Filing Date
20-02-2026
Registration No
130/2026
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
687
Police Station
KHEDA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondent(s)
MAHESHBHAI UDESINH VAGHELA
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. Maheshbhai Udesinh Vaghela (Case 130/2026) The court convicted the respondent Maheshbhai Udesinh Vaghela under IPC Section 185 (rash/negligent driving) and Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for driving an unregistered vehicle on Jahar Road while intoxicated. The respondent voluntarily pleaded guilty without coercion and requested leniency. The court sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 2,500 (or 5 days simple imprisonment in default), considering his economic hardship, first-time offender status, and family circumstances as mitigating factors warranting lenient sentencing rather than maximum punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Maheshbhai Udesinh Vaghela (Case 130/2026) The court convicted the respondent Maheshbhai Udesinh Vaghela under IPC Section 185 (rash/negligent driving) and Prohibition Act Section 66(1)(b) for driving an unregistered vehicle on Jahar Road while intoxicated. The respondent voluntarily pleaded guilty without coercion and requested leniency. The court sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 2,500 (or 5 days simple imprisonment in default), considering his economic hardship, first-time offender status, and family circumstances as mitigating factors warranting lenient sentencing rather than maximum punishment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts