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
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
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
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts