Government of Gujarat vs NITESHBHAI AAMSIYABHAI VASAVA Advocate - N S VASAVA — 56/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSR100000612026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
56/2026
Filing Date
16-02-2026
Registration No
56/2026
Registration Date
16-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, UMARPADA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11214002250466
Police Station
UMARPADA POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
NITESHBHAI AAMSIYABHAI VASAVA Advocate - N S VASAVA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 09-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 26-02-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 19-02-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Umarpada acquitted Niteshbhai Aamsiyabhai Vasava of charges under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (rash and negligent driving) because the prosecution failed to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt. Both panch witnesses turned hostile and denied the facts in the panchnama, while the investigating officer's evidence lacked crucial details such as the vehicle's speed, making it impossible to establish rash or negligent driving on the public road. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Umarpada acquitted Niteshbhai Aamsiyabhai Vasava of charges under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (rash and negligent driving) because the prosecution failed to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt. Both panch witnesses turned hostile and denied the facts in the panchnama, while the investigating officer's evidence lacked crucial details such as the vehicle's speed, making it impossible to establish rash or negligent driving on the public road. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts