THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs BIPINBHAI NEHARSINGBHAI VASAVA Advocate - R A VASAVA — 1664/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNR030018822025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1664/2025
Filing Date
10-10-2025
Registration No
1664/2025
Registration Date
10-10-2025
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
11823021250998
Police Station
SAGBARA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
BIPINBHAI NEHARSINGBHAI VASAVA Advocate - R A VASAVA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
Case Summary The JMFC Sagbara court acquitted accused Bipinbhai Neharsing Vasava of charges under Section 65AA of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, citing insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed 3 liters of country liquor worth ₹600, as the panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the seizure claim and no independent witness testimony supported the allegation. The court applied the fundamental principle that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, and without corroborating evidence, the benefit of doubt was awarded to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The JMFC Sagbara court acquitted accused Bipinbhai Neharsing Vasava of charges under Section 65AA of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, citing insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed 3 liters of country liquor worth ₹600, as the panchas (witnesses) did not corroborate the seizure claim and no independent witness testimony supported the allegation. The court applied the fundamental principle that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, and without corroborating evidence, the benefit of doubt was awarded to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts