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
Filing Number
56/2026
Filing Date
16-Feb-2026
Registration No
56/2026
Registration Date
16-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, UMARPADA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
27-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 16-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11214002250466
Police Station
UMARPADA POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.NITESHBHAI AAMSIYABHAI VASAVA Advocate - N S VASAVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
27-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
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.
-
27-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Mar-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
19-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 56/2026
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.
Explore other courts