STATE OF GUJARAT vs PRADEEPBHAI SABURBHAI BARIA Advocate - N U PARMAR — 8/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),87,64(2)(I),64(2)(M). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 22nd May 2026.

Case disposed

PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO

CNR: GJPM170002892026

Filing Number

8/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

8/2026

Registration Date

23-Feb-2026

Court

ADDL. DIST. COURT HALOL

Judge

1-Addl.district & Sessions Judge

Decision Date

22-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

587

Police Station

DAMAVAV POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHAL DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),87,64(2)(I),64(2)(M)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4,6,12

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. AGP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRADEEPBHAI SABURBHAI BARIA Advocate - N U PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 22-May-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary of Case 8/2026 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (POCSO) at Halol acquitted the accused, Pradipbhai Saburbhai Baria, of all charges on 22 May 2026, finding the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Finding: The court determined this was a consensual relationship between a 16-year-old girl and the accused. The victim voluntarily went to the accused's house and stayed there. The FIR was lodged only after settlement negotiations failed when the accused's family refused to pay ₹70,000 as demanded during a community "Davo Bhangvo" (bride-price settlement), revealing the case was motivated by extortion rather than genuine criminal complaint. Critical Evidence: The victim herself admitted in cross-examination that the accused did not molest or rape her, that she had a 3-year love relationship with him, and that he never abducted her from parental custody. Medical examination found no evidence of sexual assault (negative UPT test, no semen found, no injury marks). The court found the FIR's oblique motive cast serious doubts on the prosecution's credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-May-2026

    Disposed

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  4. 21-May-2026

    Final Arguments

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  5. 20-May-2026

    Final Arguments

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  6. 19-May-2026

    Further Statement

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  7. 18-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  8. 16-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  9. 15-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  10. 14-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  11. 28-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  12. 22-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  13. 09-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  14. 08-Apr-2026

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  15. 30-Mar-2026

    For Appearance Of Accused

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  16. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  17. 23-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 8/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 8/2026 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (POCSO) at Halol acquitted the accused, Pradipbhai Saburbhai Baria, of all charges on 22 May 2026, finding the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Finding: The court determined this was a consensual relationship between a 16-year-old girl and the accused. The victim voluntarily went to the accused's house and stayed there. The FIR was lodged only after settlement negotiations failed when the accused's family refused to pay ₹70,000 as demanded during a community "Davo Bhangvo" (bride-price settlement), revealing the case was motivated by extortion rather than genuine criminal complaint. Critical Evidence: The victim herself admitted in cross-examination that the accused did not molest or rape her, that she had a 3-year love relationship with him, and that he never abducted her from parental custody. Medical examination found no evidence of sexual assault (negative UPT test, no semen found, no injury marks). The court found the FIR's oblique motive cast serious doubts on the prosecution's credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case