Government of Gujarat vs BAHADURBHAI MANCHHIBHAI MANJIBHAI VASAVA — 93/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185,3,181. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJNR040001092026

e-Filing Number

09-07-2025

Filing Number

93/2026

Filing Date

22-Jan-2026

Registration No

93/2026

Registration Date

22-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DEDIAPADA

Judge

2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11823004250386

Police Station

DEDIAPADA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185,3,181
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(b)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BAHADURBHAI MANCHHIBHAI MANJIBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused under IPC Sections 154, 3, and 181 as well as Probation of Offenders Act Section 66(1)(b), but sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 600 with imprisonment until the fine is paid, rather than rigorous imprisonment, considering his first-time offence, impoverished background, family dependence, remorse, and assurance against future crimes. The court applied sentencing discretion based on established principles that lenient punishment is justified when circumstances warrant it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 03-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 22-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 93/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under IPC Sections 154, 3, and 181 as well as Probation of Offenders Act Section 66(1)(b), but sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 600 with imprisonment until the fine is paid, rather than rigorous imprisonment, considering his first-time offence, impoverished background, family dependence, remorse, and assurance against future crimes. The court applied sentencing discretion based on established principles that lenient punishment is justified when circumstances warrant it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case