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.
PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO
CNR: GJPM170005342024
Filing Number
10/2024
Filing Date
20-03-2024
Registration No
10/2024
Registration Date
20-03-2024
Court
ADDL. DIST. COURT HALOL
Judge
1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
27th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
177
Police Station
DAMAVAV POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHAL DISTRICT
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. AGP
Respondent(s)
MAHESHBHAI RAJESHBHAI NAYAK Advocate - V N JADAV
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 23-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 22-04-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 13-04-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts