The State of Gujarat vs Abdul Aamad Balagamiya Advocate - N B ODEDARA — 3897/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 323,504,506(2),114. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 13th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJPB020049722024

Filing Number

3897/2024

Filing Date

13-Aug-2024

Registration No

3897/2024

Registration Date

13-Aug-2024

Court

CIVIL COURT PORBANDAR

Judge

5-2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

13-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11218005240062

Police Station

MARINE NAVI BANDAR POLICE STATION - PORBANDAR DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 323,504,506(2),114
Gujarat (Bombay) Police Act, 1951 Section 135

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Abdul Aamad Balagamiya Advocate - N B ODEDARA

  2. 2.Ajit Jivanbhai Gaj

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary of Case 3897/2024 The State of Gujarat filed charges against Abdul Aamad Balagamiya and Ajit Jivanbhai Gaj for allegedly assaulting a food vendor (snack shop owner) on 22 June 2024 in Bhad village, Porbandar. The accused were charged under IPC sections 323, 504, 506(2), and 114, plus Gujarat Police Act section 135 for violating weapon-bearing proclamation. After examining all evidence including witness testimonies and medical reports, the court found insufficient proof that the accused caused injuries or threats with required criminal intent. The court acquitted both accused, applying the principle that benefit of doubt goes to the accused in criminal cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 27-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 20-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  7. 28-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  8. 24-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  9. 09-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  10. 30-Jan-2026

    Further Statement

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  11. 03-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  12. 05-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  13. 07-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  14. 10-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  15. 12-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  16. 08-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  17. 19-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  18. 24-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  19. 17-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

  20. 21-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  21. 30-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  22. 18-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  23. 13-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 13-Aug-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3897/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 3897/2024 The State of Gujarat filed charges against Abdul Aamad Balagamiya and Ajit Jivanbhai Gaj for allegedly assaulting a food vendor (snack shop owner) on 22 June 2024 in Bhad village, Porbandar. The accused were charged under IPC sections 323, 504, 506(2), and 114, plus Gujarat Police Act section 135 for violating weapon-bearing proclamation. After examining all evidence including witness testimonies and medical reports, the court found insufficient proof that the accused caused injuries or threats with required criminal intent. The court acquitted both accused, applying the principle that benefit of doubt goes to the accused in criminal cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case