Government of Gujarat vs YOGESHBHAI BHARATBHAI PATEL — 588/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSR070006692026

e-Filing Number

16-12-2025

Filing Number

588/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

588/2026

Registration Date

23-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, BARDOLI

Judge

4-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11214008251399

Police Station

BARDOLI POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)(b)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.YOGESHBHAI BHARATBHAI PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court found the accused guilty of offenses under Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 and Prohibition Act Section 66(1)B, and sentenced him to imprisonment until court rising (time served) plus a total fine of ₹1,600 (₹1,500 under MV Act and ₹100 under Prohibition Act), with 3 days simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine is not paid. The court applied the proportionality principle and considered the accused's economic and social circumstances to impose a lenient sentence despite the serious nature of the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 588/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court found the accused guilty of offenses under Motor Vehicles Act Section 185 and Prohibition Act Section 66(1)B, and sentenced him to imprisonment until court rising (time served) plus a total fine of ₹1,600 (₹1,500 under MV Act and ₹100 under Prohibition Act), with 3 days simple imprisonment as an alternative if the fine is not paid. The court applied the proportionality principle and considered the accused's economic and social circumstances to impose a lenient sentence despite the serious nature of the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case