THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs ALPESHBHAI KANTILAL NARANDAS PATEL Advocate - N R RAVAL — 93/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 397,394,201,114,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 08th April 2026.

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: GJMH010035212025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

93/2025

Filing Date

27-10-2025

Registration No

93/2025

Registration Date

27-10-2025

Court

DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

08th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

206

Police Station

B DIVISION POLICE STATION - MAHESANA DISTRICT

Year

2014

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 397,394,201,114,
GUJARAT (BOMBAY) POLICE ACT, 1951 Section 135,

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. S R PATEL

Respondent(s)

ALPESHBHAI KANTILAL NARANDAS PATEL Advocate - N R RAVAL

DILIPBHAI KANTILAL REVABHAI PATEL

Adv. N R RAVAL

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

08-04-2026

Disposed

03-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

01-04-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

07-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

26-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

08-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary The Sessions Court in Mehsana acquitted both accused (Alpesh Kantilal Patel and Dilip Kantilal Patel) of charges under IPC Sections 397, 394, 201, 114 and GPS Act Section 135, finding insufficient evidence to prove the alleged dacoity case. The court determined that the complainant and eyewitness testimonies lacked credibility and failed to substantiate that the accused committed the crime, despite the police investigation and chargesheet. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Sessions Court in Mehsana acquitted both accused (Alpesh Kantilal Patel and Dilip Kantilal Patel) of charges under IPC Sections 397, 394, 201, 114 and GPS Act Section 135, finding insufficient evidence to prove the alleged dacoity case. The court determined that the complainant and eyewitness testimonies lacked credibility and failed to substantiate that the accused committed the crime, despite the police investigation and chargesheet. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case