Government of Gujarat vs PANDHERINATH HIRAMAN BADE Advocate - C B DESAI — 1374/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,304A. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSR090016632024

Filing Number

1374/2024

Filing Date

11-Jun-2024

Registration No

1374/2024

Registration Date

11-Jun-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, PALSANA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11214023240036

Police Station

KADODARA GIDC POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,304A
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 177,184

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PANDHERINATH HIRAMAN BADE Advocate - C B DESAI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 1374/2024 Court Decision: The accused, Pandherinath Hiraman Bade, was acquitted of all charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 304(a) and MV Act Sections 177, 184. The court found insufficient evidence of rash or negligent driving causing the death of a pedestrian in a road accident on January 8, 2024. Key Reasoning: While the death was confirmed through post-mortem and investigation reports, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused's driving was rash or negligent. No eyewitness directly observed the accused driving recklessly; all witnesses learned of the accident secondhand. The bus conductor testified the vehicle's speed was normal and the driver showed no negligence. Without proving criminal rashness beyond mere carelessness, the charges could not be sustained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 03-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 29-Jan-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 06-Jan-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 16-Dec-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 02-Dec-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 15-Nov-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 03-Nov-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 22-Sep-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 25-Aug-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 23-Jun-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 19-May-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 24-Mar-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 17-Feb-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 06-Jan-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 02-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 04-Oct-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 30-Aug-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 04-Jul-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 11-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1374/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 1374/2024 Court Decision: The accused, Pandherinath Hiraman Bade, was acquitted of all charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 304(a) and MV Act Sections 177, 184. The court found insufficient evidence of rash or negligent driving causing the death of a pedestrian in a road accident on January 8, 2024. Key Reasoning: While the death was confirmed through post-mortem and investigation reports, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused's driving was rash or negligent. No eyewitness directly observed the accused driving recklessly; all witnesses learned of the accident secondhand. The bus conductor testified the vehicle's speed was normal and the driver showed no negligence. Without proving criminal rashness beyond mere carelessness, the charges could not be sustained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case