STATE OF GUJARAT vs MAHESHBHAI RAJESHBHAI NAYAK Advocate - V N JADAV — 10/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363,366,376(2)(N),376(3). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th April 2026.

Case disposed

PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO

CNR: GJPM170005342024

Filing Number

10/2024

Filing Date

20-Mar-2024

Registration No

10/2024

Registration Date

20-Mar-2024

Court

ADDL. DIST. COURT HALOL

Judge

1-Addl.district & Sessions Judge

Decision Date

27-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

177

Police Station

DAMAVAV POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHAL DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 363,366,376(2)(N),376(3)
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.MAHESHBHAI RAJESHBHAI NAYAK Advocate - V N JADAV

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case 10/2024 Summary: State of Gujarat vs. Maheshbhai Rajeshbhai Nayak In a Gujarat POCSO court judgment dated 27.04.2026, the accused Maheshbhai Rajeshbhai Nayak was acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) and POCSO Act Sections 4, 6, 12. The court found the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor (below 18 years), which is essential for POCSO offenses. The victim herself testified to a consensual relationship, marriage in a temple, and currently living with the accused—facts corroborating the defense that no abduction or forcible intercourse occurred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  4. 24-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  5. 23-Apr-2026

    Further Statement

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  6. 22-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  7. 13-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  9. 19-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  10. 29-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  11. 16-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  12. 02-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  13. 10-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  14. 19-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  15. 03-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  16. 07-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  17. 29-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  18. 16-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  19. 21-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  20. 11-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  21. 30-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  22. 25-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  23. 14-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  24. 07-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  25. 18-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  26. 27-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  27. 05-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  28. 22-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  29. 03-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  30. 25-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  31. 07-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  32. 17-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  33. 31-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  34. 08-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  35. 17-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  36. 22-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  37. 23-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  38. 09-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  39. 20-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  40. 27-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  41. 03-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  42. 10-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  43. 20-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  44. 03-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  45. 15-May-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  46. 29-Apr-2024

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  47. 23-Apr-2024

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  48. 15-Apr-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  49. 20-Mar-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 10/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case 10/2024 Summary: State of Gujarat vs. Maheshbhai Rajeshbhai Nayak In a Gujarat POCSO court judgment dated 27.04.2026, the accused Maheshbhai Rajeshbhai Nayak was acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) and POCSO Act Sections 4, 6, 12. The court found the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor (below 18 years), which is essential for POCSO offenses. The victim herself testified to a consensual relationship, marriage in a temple, and currently living with the accused—facts corroborating the defense that no abduction or forcible intercourse occurred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case