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
Filing Number
1686/2025
Filing Date
13-Oct-2025
Registration No
1686/2025
Registration Date
13-Oct-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, SAGBARA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 06-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11823021250822
Police Station
SAGBARA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.ANKIT VASANT PADVI Advocate - R A VASAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
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.
-
10-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
25-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Mar-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
30-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1686/2025
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.
Explore other courts