GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs KAMINIBEN KAMLESHBHAI RAGENI Advocate - A K BAROT — 104/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 331(4),305(D),54,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJMH120001702026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
104/2026
Filing Date
13-02-2026
Registration No
104/2026
Registration Date
13-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, UNJHA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11206033250598
Police Station
UNJHA POLICE STATION - MEHSANA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KAMINIBEN KAMLESHBHAI RAGENI Advocate - A K BAROT
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 10-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Unjha acquitted the accused Kaminiben (a/o Kamleshbhai) in Criminal Case No. 104/2026 for theft of silver articles worth Rs. 1,20,000 from Zhaprda Maharaj Temple. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime, as the complainant could not identify who actually stole the items and no independent witness evidence corroborated the case. Consequently, the accused was acquitted under IPC Sections 305(D), 331(4), and 54 and ordered to be released on bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Unjha acquitted the accused Kaminiben (a/o Kamleshbhai) in Criminal Case No. 104/2026 for theft of silver articles worth Rs. 1,20,000 from Zhaprda Maharaj Temple. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime, as the complainant could not identify who actually stole the items and no independent witness evidence corroborated the case. Consequently, the accused was acquitted under IPC Sections 305(D), 331(4), and 54 and ordered to be released on bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts