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.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJNR040001092026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

09-07-2025

Filing Number

93/2026

Filing Date

22-01-2026

Registration No

93/2026

Registration Date

22-01-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DEDIAPADA

Judge

2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

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)

Government of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

BAHADURBHAI MANCHHIBHAI MANJIBHAI VASAVA

Hearing History

Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

12-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

03-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
ORDER

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DEDIAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case