The State Of Gujarat vs LACHCHHARAM KHUBIRAM HARET GURJAR Advocate - R K BRAHMBHATT — 1579/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 106(1),281,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSK030019132025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1579/2025

Filing Date

28-08-2025

Registration No

1579/2025

Registration Date

28-08-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, PRANTIJ

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

30th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

690

Police Station

PRANTIJ POLICE STATION - SABARKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 106(1),281,
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Section 177,184,134(B)

Petitioner(s)

The State Of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

LACHCHHARAM KHUBIRAM HARET GURJAR Advocate - R K BRAHMBHATT

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

30-03-2026

Disposed

17-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

10-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

07-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

25-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

30-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Prantij acquitted the accused of charges under IPC Sections 106(1), 281, and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 177, 184, and 134, finding insufficient evidence that the accused recklessly or negligently operated the vehicle causing the victim's death. The court determined that while the victim died in a hit-and-run incident, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving dangerously or without due care at the time of the accident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Prantij acquitted the accused of charges under IPC Sections 106(1), 281, and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 177, 184, and 134, finding insufficient evidence that the accused recklessly or negligently operated the vehicle causing the victim's death. The court determined that while the victim died in a hit-and-run incident, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving dangerously or without due care at the time of the accident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, PRANTIJ All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case