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
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
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
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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
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
Explore other courts