Government of Gujarat vs MUKESH AJUBHAI GOHEL Advocate - D K SONDARVA — 684/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPB040008002025
Filing Number
684/2025
Filing Date
07-Oct-2025
Registration No
684/2025
Registration Date
07-Oct-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT-KUTIYANA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
Decision Date
03-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 15-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
523
Police Station
KUTIYANA POLICE STATION - PORBANDAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.MUKESH AJUBHAI GOHEL Advocate - D K SONDARVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
03-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary The court acquitted the accused of charges under IPC Section 281 and MV Act Section 181, finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish independent, reliable witness testimony and could not adequately corroborate the allegations regarding rash/negligent driving without a valid license. The court noted that the case against the accused cannot be sustained without substantial corroborating evidence from neutral witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
03-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
-
02-Apr-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
-
24-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
-
11-Mar-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
-
05-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
-
06-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
-
09-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
-
12-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 684/2025
Summary The court acquitted the accused of charges under IPC Section 281 and MV Act Section 181, finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish independent, reliable witness testimony and could not adequately corroborate the allegations regarding rash/negligent driving without a valid license. The court noted that the case against the accused cannot be sustained without substantial corroborating evidence from neutral witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts