Government of Gujarat vs RANMAL DULABHAI BAPODARA Advocate - M A MANGHERA — 6/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65F. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 22nd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPB030000132026
Filing Number
6/2026
Filing Date
15-Jan-2026
Registration No
6/2026
Registration Date
15-Jan-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT-RANAVAV
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
22-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 29-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
310
Police Station
RANAVAV POLICE STATION - PORBANDAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.RANMAL DULABHAI BAPODARA Advocate - M A MANGHERA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
22-Apr-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: 6/2026 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranajitsinh court acquitted the accused (Ranmal Dulabhai Bapodara) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a) (manufacturing illicit alcohol). The court found insufficient evidence to prove the accusation beyond reasonable doubt, as the prosecution failed to present credible and corroborating witness testimony to substantiate the case. The court ordered the seizure of confiscated alcohol samples to be destroyed and directed the forfeiture of seized property to the government, while ordering the accused's release under Section 281(1) IPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
22-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
15-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 6/2026
Case Summary: 6/2026 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranajitsinh court acquitted the accused (Ranmal Dulabhai Bapodara) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a) (manufacturing illicit alcohol). The court found insufficient evidence to prove the accusation beyond reasonable doubt, as the prosecution failed to present credible and corroborating witness testimony to substantiate the case. The court ordered the seizure of confiscated alcohol samples to be destroyed and directed the forfeiture of seized property to the government, while ordering the accused's release under Section 281(1) IPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts