GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs PRATAPBHAI GULABSINH BARIA — 4485/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 13th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPM020066982025
Filing Number
4485/2025
Filing Date
08-10-2025
Registration No
4485/2025
Registration Date
08-10-2025
Court
CIVIL COURT GODHRA
Judge
6-2ND ADDL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
Decision Date
13th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
621
Police Station
GODHRA TALUKA POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
PRATAPBHAI GULABSINH BARIA
Hearing History
Judge: 6-2ND ADDL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 04-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 4485/2025 The court acquitted respondent Pratapbhai Gulabsinh Baria of charges under Prohibition Act Section 69(a)(a) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, as critical details in the complaint remained unverified, witness statements lacked consistency, and the seized contraband could not be conclusively linked to the accused. The court held that the prosecution bore the burden of proof and the accused's weak case did not establish guilt, particularly regarding the location, owner identification, and material custody during the police raid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 4485/2025 The court acquitted respondent Pratapbhai Gulabsinh Baria of charges under Prohibition Act Section 69(a)(a) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, as critical details in the complaint remained unverified, witness statements lacked consistency, and the seized contraband could not be conclusively linked to the accused. The court held that the prosecution bore the burden of proof and the accused's weak case did not establish guilt, particularly regarding the location, owner identification, and material custody during the police raid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts