THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs AARIF SULTAN BAVA Advocate - S D GADHVI — 387/2026

Case under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B),85(1). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT100006042026

Filing Number

387/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

387/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANJAR

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11993014260061

Police Station

DUDHAI POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B),85(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AARIF SULTAN BAVA Advocate - S D GADHVI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The court convicted defendant Arif Sultan Bawa under Section 66(1)(B) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act based on his voluntary confession of guilt. Applying the principle that courts may impose lesser punishment than the statutory minimum when justified by circumstances, the judge sentenced him to a fine of ₹200 with an alternative imprisonment of 2 days, considering this was his first offense and his poor financial and family circumstances warranted leniency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

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

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 387/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court convicted defendant Arif Sultan Bawa under Section 66(1)(B) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act based on his voluntary confession of guilt. Applying the principle that courts may impose lesser punishment than the statutory minimum when justified by circumstances, the judge sentenced him to a fine of ₹200 with an alternative imprisonment of 2 days, considering this was his first offense and his poor financial and family circumstances warranted leniency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case