Government of Gujarat vs LEUVA BIPINKUMAR HARSHADBHAI — 135/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(B). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJMH050002092026
Filing Number
135/2026
Filing Date
23-Feb-2026
Registration No
135/2026
Registration Date
23-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, KHERALU
Judge
2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY
Last updated 05-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11206023250497
Police Station
KHERALU POLICE STATION- MEHSANA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.LEUVA BIPINKUMAR HARSHADBHAI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
Order
Summary The court acquitted the accused of charges under Section 85(1) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (drunk and disorderly behavior), finding that the prosecution failed to prove at least one essential act required by the statute. However, the court convicted the accused under Section 66(1)(b) of the same Act (2016 amendment) for consuming/possessing intoxicants and sentenced him to imprisonment up to 10 days with a fine of Rs. 100, or 10 additional days imprisonment in default of fine payment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
10-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 135/2026
Summary The court acquitted the accused of charges under Section 85(1) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 (drunk and disorderly behavior), finding that the prosecution failed to prove at least one essential act required by the statute. However, the court convicted the accused under Section 66(1)(b) of the same Act (2016 amendment) for consuming/possessing intoxicants and sentenced him to imprisonment up to 10 days with a fine of Rs. 100, or 10 additional days imprisonment in default of fine payment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts