Government of Gujarat vs NAJMABEN JUSAB GAGDA Advocate - M H RATHOD — 113/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 384,328,506,114. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 01st April 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: GJKT010038132023
Filing Number
113/2023
Filing Date
04-08-2023
Registration No
113/2023
Registration Date
04-08-2023
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BHUJ
Judge
29-7th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11205043220287
Police Station
BHUJ CITY B DIVI POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. P V VANIYA
Respondent(s)
NAJMABEN JUSAB GAGDA Advocate - M H RATHOD
Hearing History
Judge: 29-7th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 25-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 11-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 28-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The 7th Additional Sessions Judge of Bhuj, Kutch acquitted both accused persons—Gani Aamd Hoda and Nazmabeen Jusab Gagda—in Sessions Cases No. 37/2023 and 113/2023, finding them not guilty under IPC Sections 384, 328, 506, 114 and IT Act Section 67(A). The court determined that the prosecution failed to establish the charges of extortion, administering intoxicating substances, criminal intimidation, and abetting through circulated intimate videos beyond reasonable doubt, citing lack of corroborating medical evidence, missing video files, and insufficient witness testimony to support the allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The 7th Additional Sessions Judge of Bhuj, Kutch acquitted both accused persons—Gani Aamd Hoda and Nazmabeen Jusab Gagda—in Sessions Cases No. 37/2023 and 113/2023, finding them not guilty under IPC Sections 384, 328, 506, 114 and IT Act Section 67(A). The court determined that the prosecution failed to establish the charges of extortion, administering intoxicating substances, criminal intimidation, and abetting through circulated intimate videos beyond reasonable doubt, citing lack of corroborating medical evidence, missing video files, and insufficient witness testimony to support the allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts