MITRAJSINH SHAILENDRASINH GOHIL vs GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - DGP — 271/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 442. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 18th March 2026.
CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION
CNR: GJRJ010075562025
Filing Number
271/2025
Filing Date
03-Sep-2025
Registration No
271/2025
Registration Date
03-Sep-2025
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT RAJKOT
Judge
7-5th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 16-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MITRAJSINH SHAILENDRASINH GOHIL
Adv. P M SHAH
-
2.ARJUNSINH DIGVIJAYSINH JADEJA
-
3.PARAG JAYSUKHLAL SHINGALA
-
4.VIRENDRA KATHUBHAI KOTILA
Respondent(s)
-
1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - DGP
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary The Rajkot Sixth Additional Sessions Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the trial court's order rejecting the accused's discharge application under IPC Section 394 (dacoity). The court found that the complainant's statements were contradictory and internally inconsistent, the medical and forensic evidence did not support allegations of robbery, no bills or proof of ownership of allegedly stolen items were produced, and CCTV footage or proper investigative documentation was absent. Consequently, the court discharged the four accused under IPC Section 394 as insufficient evidence supported the dacoity charge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
5th Addl District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Process To Respondents
6th Addl District Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Process To Respondents
6th Addl District Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Process To Respondents
6th Addl District Judge
-
07-Mar-2026
Process To Respondents
6th Addl District Judge
-
08-Jan-2026
Process To Respondents
7th Addl District Judge
-
25-Nov-2025
Process To Respondents
8th Addl District Judge
-
11-Nov-2025
Process To Respondents
8th Addl District Judge
-
03-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 271/2025
Summary The Rajkot Sixth Additional Sessions Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the trial court's order rejecting the accused's discharge application under IPC Section 394 (dacoity). The court found that the complainant's statements were contradictory and internally inconsistent, the medical and forensic evidence did not support allegations of robbery, no bills or proof of ownership of allegedly stolen items were produced, and CCTV footage or proper investigative documentation was absent. Consequently, the court discharged the four accused under IPC Section 394 as insufficient evidence supported the dacoity charge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts