THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs ANIL PRATAPSING VALVI Advocate - Y R VALVI — 1430/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJNR030015972025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1430/2025

Filing Date

06-08-2025

Registration No

1430/2025

Registration Date

06-08-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, SAGBARA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

10th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11823021250737

Police Station

SAGBARA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 281,
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Section 3,181,

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

ANIL PRATAPSING VALVI Advocate - Y R VALVI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

10-04-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

10-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

03-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

06-01-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

10-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagbara acquitted accused Anilbhai Prataapsingh Valvi of charges under Indian Penal Code Section 281 (rash/negligent driving) and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 3 and 181 (driving without license), giving him benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving recklessly or negligently in a manner endangering human life, lacking independent corroborating witness testimony despite having panch witnesses present at the spot. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagbara acquitted accused Anilbhai Prataapsingh Valvi of charges under Indian Penal Code Section 281 (rash/negligent driving) and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 3 and 181 (driving without license), giving him benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving recklessly or negligently in a manner endangering human life, lacking independent corroborating witness testimony despite having panch witnesses present at the spot. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SAGBARA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case