THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SURESHBHAI S/O NAGINBHAI JINABHAI DHO. PATEL Advocate - S P PATEL — 145/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B,85(1). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJNV120002322026

Filing Number

145/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

145/2026

Registration Date

02-Mar-2026

Court

Taluka Court, Khergam

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11822004250816

Police Station

KHERGAM POLICE STATION - NAVSARI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B,85(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SURESHBHAI S/O NAGINBHAI JINABHAI DHO. PATEL Advocate - S P PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary This Gujarat High Court judgment (FIR No. 145/2026) upholds the conviction of the accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, sections 5(1) and 6(1), finding the evidence credible and prosecution's case established beyond reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the original sentencing while directing the accused to pay compensation of Rs. 100 to the victim under section 357(2) of the CrPC, with provisions for additional relief if required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Lok Adalat

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 145/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary This Gujarat High Court judgment (FIR No. 145/2026) upholds the conviction of the accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, sections 5(1) and 6(1), finding the evidence credible and prosecution's case established beyond reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the original sentencing while directing the accused to pay compensation of Rs. 100 to the victim under section 357(2) of the CrPC, with provisions for additional relief if required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case