THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs ANKIT VASANT PADVI Advocate - R A VASAVA — 1686/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNR030019042025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1686/2025
Filing Date
13-10-2025
Registration No
1686/2025
Registration Date
13-10-2025
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
11823021250822
Police Station
SAGBARA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ANKIT VASANT PADVI 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 | |
| 30-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The JMFC Sagbara court acquitted accused Ankitbhai Vasantbhai Padvi of charges under IPC Section 281 and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 3 and 181 (rash/negligent driving without a valid license) due to insufficient corroborative evidence. While panchnama witnesses could not substantiate the vehicle's seizure, and no independent eyewitnesses were produced despite the incident occurring on a busy public road, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove recklessly or negligently in a manner endangering human life. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The JMFC Sagbara court acquitted accused Ankitbhai Vasantbhai Padvi of charges under IPC Section 281 and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 3 and 181 (rash/negligent driving without a valid license) due to insufficient corroborative evidence. While panchnama witnesses could not substantiate the vehicle's seizure, and no independent eyewitnesses were produced despite the incident occurring on a busy public road, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove recklessly or negligently in a manner endangering human life. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts