GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs RAFIK JUMA BAJANIYA Advocate - V R GADHVI — 5/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379,114. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 12th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKT070000052023
Filing Number
5/2023
Filing Date
03-01-2023
Registration No
5/2023
Registration Date
03-01-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, NAKHATRANA
Judge
4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
FIR Details
FIR Number
11205035221068
Police Station
NAKHATRANA POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
RAFIK JUMA BAJANIYA Advocate - V R GADHVI
UPENDRA RAMNAVMI NISHAD
HARILAL @ INDIAN GOPALBHAI GAGAL(AHIR)RAMNAVMI NISHAD
Hearing History
Judge: 4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
WARRANT OF ARREST
WARRANT OF ARREST
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 25-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 11-02-2026 | WARRANT OF ARREST |
| 27-01-2026 | WARRANT OF ARREST |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Nakhtrrana, Gujarat acquitted all three accused—Rafik Juma Bajaniya, Upendra Ramanvami Nishad, and Harilal Urfé Indian Gopalabhai Gagal—of theft charges under IPC sections 379 and 114 (case FIR 05/2023). The court found that while pipes worth Rs. 3,00,000 were stolen from Jindal Company, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that these specific accused committed the theft, as witness testimonies only confirmed the theft occurred but could not identify the perpetrators. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Nakhtrrana, Gujarat acquitted all three accused—Rafik Juma Bajaniya, Upendra Ramanvami Nishad, and Harilal Urfé Indian Gopalabhai Gagal—of theft charges under IPC sections 379 and 114 (case FIR 05/2023). The court found that while pipes worth Rs. 3,00,000 were stolen from Jindal Company, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that these specific accused committed the theft, as witness testimonies only confirmed the theft occurred but could not identify the perpetrators. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts