Government of Gujarat vs Ravibhai amarsibhai vaghela Advocate - A R BAMBHAVA — 76/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJRJ100000992026
e-Filing Number
27-11-2025
Filing Number
76/2026
Filing Date
13-Jan-2026
Registration No
76/2026
Registration Date
13-Jan-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PADDHARI
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 16-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11213042250611
Police Station
PADDHARI POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Ravibhai amarsibhai vaghela Advocate - A R BAMBHAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Ravibhai Amarshbhai Vaghela, of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment noted critical evidentiary gaps, including the absence of independent witnesses (only police witnesses testified), lack of proper documentation linking the accused to the seized alcohol, and procedural irregularities in the investigation. Consequently, the accused was discharged and granted bail relief under CrPC Section 481(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Feb-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
06-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 76/2026
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Ravibhai Amarshbhai Vaghela, of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment noted critical evidentiary gaps, including the absence of independent witnesses (only police witnesses testified), lack of proper documentation linking the accused to the seized alcohol, and procedural irregularities in the investigation. Consequently, the accused was discharged and granted bail relief under CrPC Section 481(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts