GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE vs MAHMAND HUSEN KAREJA KADAR — 1010/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 285. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 11th July 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKT030014162026
Filing Number
1010/2026
Filing Date
21-Apr-2026
Registration No
1010/2026
Registration Date
21-Apr-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, MUNDRA
Judge
3-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
11-Jul-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
Last updated 18-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
303
Police Station
MUNDRA POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT THE STATE
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.MAHMAND HUSEN KAREJA KADAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Jul-2026
Order
Summary of Case 1010/2026 The court convicted respondent Mahmand Husen Kareja Kadar of a petty offense under IPC Section 285 (2023) on his voluntary plea of guilty. Considering the respondent's impoverished background, status as a sole family earner, and applying reformative theory of punishment, the court found that conviction without additional punishment would serve justice. The respondent was acquitted but ordered to pay ₹500 fine (or face 7 days imprisonment in default) and required to furnish bail during appeal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Jul-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Jun-2026
Order
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 1010/2026
Summary of Case 1010/2026 The court convicted respondent Mahmand Husen Kareja Kadar of a petty offense under IPC Section 285 (2023) on his voluntary plea of guilty. Considering the respondent's impoverished background, status as a sole family earner, and applying reformative theory of punishment, the court found that conviction without additional punishment would serve justice. The respondent was acquitted but ordered to pay ₹500 fine (or face 7 days imprisonment in default) and required to furnish bail during appeal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts