STATE OF GUJARAT vs SURPALSINH TEJUBHA PARMAR Advocate - V P ZALA — 741/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(2),352,351(3),54,. Disposed: Uncontested--JUDGEMENT on 18th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJMR060010512025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

741/2025

Filing Date

08-08-2025

Registration No

741/2025

Registration Date

08-08-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, HALVAD

Judge

33-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

18th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--JUDGEMENT

FIR Details

FIR Number

116

Police Station

HALVAD POLICE STATION - MORBI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 115(2),352,351(3),54,

Petitioner(s)

STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

SURPALSINH TEJUBHA PARMAR Advocate - V P ZALA

JAYDEVSINH URFE KANBHA JAYENDRASINH JADEJA

Adv. V P ZALA

Hearing History

Judge: 33-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM

18-03-2026

Disposed

17-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

09-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

24-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

17-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

18-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court acquitted accused Surpalsinh Tejubha Parmar of charges under IPC sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), and 54 (related to criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, and criminal intimidation to cause injury). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt—the victim's testimony lacked credibility, contained contradictions, and was not sufficiently corroborated by physical or documentary evidence. The court concluded that the accused's account was more plausible and that the evidence did not meet the required standard to convict. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

17-03-2026
ORDER
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted accused Surpalsinh Tejubha Parmar of charges under IPC sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), and 54 (related to criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, and criminal intimidation to cause injury). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt—the victim's testimony lacked credibility, contained contradictions, and was not sufficiently corroborated by physical or documentary evidence. The court concluded that the accused's account was more plausible and that the evidence did not meet the required standard to convict. 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, HALVAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case