THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs AJIT MANSHUKH BAROT Advocate - A K KHATRI — 274/2026

Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 20th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT100004682026

Filing Number

274/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

274/2026

Registration Date

02-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANJAR

Judge

13-2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

20-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11993003251494

Police Station

ANJAR POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AJIT MANSHUKH BAROT Advocate - A K KHATRI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Gujarat High Court discharged the accused under Section 262 of the CrPC, quashing the charge sheet due to insufficient evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case beyond the co-accused's statement, with no corroborating material in the chargesheet. The judgment also criticized police practice of filing "designed FIRs" under the Prohibition Act where accused escape despite prior police intelligence, directing the state to implement monitoring mechanisms to prevent such practices. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 274/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Gujarat High Court discharged the accused under Section 262 of the CrPC, quashing the charge sheet due to insufficient evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case beyond the co-accused's statement, with no corroborating material in the chargesheet. The judgment also criticized police practice of filing "designed FIRs" under the Prohibition Act where accused escape despite prior police intelligence, directing the state to implement monitoring mechanisms to prevent such practices. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case