GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs RAVINDARA KUMAR SHANTILAL SOLANKI Advocate - J M DINDOR — 219/2025

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85, 661B. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJPM050002942025

Filing Number

219/2025

Filing Date

24-Feb-2025

Registration No

219/2025

Registration Date

24-Feb-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, SHEHERA

Judge

2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

851

Police Station

SHAHERA POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 85, 661B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAVINDARA KUMAR SHANTILAL SOLANKI Advocate - J M DINDOR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Ravindara Kumar Shantilal Solanki Case No.: 219/2025 Court Decision: The court discharged the accused under Section 85 of the Gujarat Police Act (drunk and disorderly behavior charge), finding insufficient prima facie evidence. Although the FIR alleged general misconduct (quarreling, abusive language, indecent behavior), the police complaint and chargesheet lacked specific, concrete particulars demonstrating the accused's conduct as prescribed under Section 85—namely, that the accused was drunk and created a nuisance, quarreled, used foul language, fought, or misbehaved with a woman in a public place. The court held that mere suspicion unsupported by clear factual details in the record was insufficient to frame charges, applying the settled legal principle that a trial judge must exercise judicial discretion to determine whether sufficient prima facie evidence exists before proceeding to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 13-Feb-2026

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 16-Jan-2026

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 13-Dec-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 10-Dec-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 19-Nov-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 24-Sep-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 29-Aug-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 23-Jul-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 20-Jun-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 12-May-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 16-Apr-2025

    Plea

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 08-Mar-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 06-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  18. 24-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 219/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Ravindara Kumar Shantilal Solanki Case No.: 219/2025 Court Decision: The court discharged the accused under Section 85 of the Gujarat Police Act (drunk and disorderly behavior charge), finding insufficient prima facie evidence. Although the FIR alleged general misconduct (quarreling, abusive language, indecent behavior), the police complaint and chargesheet lacked specific, concrete particulars demonstrating the accused's conduct as prescribed under Section 85—namely, that the accused was drunk and created a nuisance, quarreled, used foul language, fought, or misbehaved with a woman in a public place. The court held that mere suspicion unsupported by clear factual details in the record was insufficient to frame charges, applying the settled legal principle that a trial judge must exercise judicial discretion to determine whether sufficient prima facie evidence exists before proceeding to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case