STATE OF GUJARAT vs HARESHBHAI UMARIYABHAI PAWAR Advocate - S B PAWAR — 89/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66()B. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJNV130001002026

Filing Number

89/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

89/2026

Registration Date

03-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, SUBIR

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1219003250440

Police Station

SUBIR POLICE STATION - DANG DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66()B
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HARESHBHAI UMARIYABHAI PAWAR Advocate - S B PAWAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused under IPC Section 185 and Probation of Offenders Act Section 4(1) for driving under the influence of alcohol. Considering the accused's voluntary confession, poor economic circumstances as the sole earner, and principles of judicial discretion, the court imposed a reduced sentence of Rs. 200 fine and two days' simple imprisonment, with directions to maintain bail bonds and return seized property to its rightful owner. 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

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 89/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused under IPC Section 185 and Probation of Offenders Act Section 4(1) for driving under the influence of alcohol. Considering the accused's voluntary confession, poor economic circumstances as the sole earner, and principles of judicial discretion, the court imposed a reduced sentence of Rs. 200 fine and two days' simple imprisonment, with directions to maintain bail bonds and return seized property to its rightful owner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case