STATE OF GUJARAT vs SUNILBHAI RAJUBHAI NAYAK Advocate - D R SOLANKI — 32/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),87,64(2)(M),64(2)(I),69. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 04th June 2026.

Case disposed

PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO

CNR: GJPM170011742025

Filing Number

32/2025

Filing Date

13-Aug-2025

Registration No

32/2025

Registration Date

13-Aug-2025

Court

ADDL. DIST. COURT HALOL

Judge

1-Addl.district & Sessions Judge

Decision Date

04-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

447

Police Station

HALOL TOWN POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),87,64(2)(M),64(2)(I),69
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.SUNILBHAI RAJUBHAI NAYAK Advocate - D R SOLANKI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Jun-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Sunilbhai Rajubhai Nayak (Special POCSO Case 32/2025) The Special POCSO Court at Halol acquitted 21-year-old Sunilbhai Rajubhai Nayak of all charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act, finding the prosecution failed to prove abduction or sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Though the victim was confirmed to be a minor (17 years 8 months), the court determined she voluntarily accompanied the accused in a consensual love affair without any inducement or force, and no physical relationship was established by medical evidence or the victim's own testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  4. 03-Jun-2026

    Further Statement

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  5. 02-Jun-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  6. 15-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  7. 14-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  8. 13-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  9. 08-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  10. 06-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  11. 13-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  12. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  13. 21-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  14. 29-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  15. 07-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  16. 18-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  17. 01-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  18. 17-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  19. 27-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  20. 25-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  21. 16-Sep-2025

    Copies To Accused

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  22. 04-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 13-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 32/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Sunilbhai Rajubhai Nayak (Special POCSO Case 32/2025) The Special POCSO Court at Halol acquitted 21-year-old Sunilbhai Rajubhai Nayak of all charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act, finding the prosecution failed to prove abduction or sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Though the victim was confirmed to be a minor (17 years 8 months), the court determined she voluntarily accompanied the accused in a consensual love affair without any inducement or force, and no physical relationship was established by medical evidence or the victim's own testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case