GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs BAJANIYA RAMESH ALIAS BHOTI SHANKARBHAI AMTHABHAI Advocate - M A PRAJAPATI — 899/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 303(2),54,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 01st May 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJMH120011872025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

899/2025

Filing Date

08-08-2025

Registration No

899/2025

Registration Date

08-08-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, UNJHA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

01st May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11206033250194

Police Station

UNJHA POLICE STATION - MEHSANA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 303(2),54,

Petitioner(s)

GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

BAJANIYA RAMESH ALIAS BHOTI SHANKARBHAI AMTHABHAI Advocate - M A PRAJAPATI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

01-05-2026

Disposed

24-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

09-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

10-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

02-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

01-05-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Unjha acquitted the accused Ramesh (alias Bhoti) Shankarbhai Amthabhai Bajaniya of charges under IPC sections 303(2) and 54, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the theft of jewelry and cash (estimated value ₹2,40,000) beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's testimony alone, without corroborating material evidence or credible supporting witnesses, was insufficient to establish the guilt with the required certainty in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Unjha acquitted the accused Ramesh (alias Bhoti) Shankarbhai Amthabhai Bajaniya of charges under IPC sections 303(2) and 54, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the theft of jewelry and cash (estimated value ₹2,40,000) beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's testimony alone, without corroborating material evidence or credible supporting witnesses, was insufficient to establish the guilt with the required certainty in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, UNJHA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case