Government of Gujarat vs AVINASHBHAI UKKALBHAI VASAVA Advocate - H G VASAVA — 469/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSR100005312025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

469/2025

Filing Date

20-08-2025

Registration No

469/2025

Registration Date

20-08-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, UMARPADA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11214002250163

Police Station

UMARPADA POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 281,

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

AVINASHBHAI UKKALBHAI VASAVA Advocate - H G VASAVA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

12-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

23-02-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

19-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

13-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Court Decision Summary The Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C. Court, Umarpada (Surat) acquitted the accused Avinashbhai Ukkalbhai Vasava of charges under IPC Section 281 (rash/negligent driving). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence—particularly the panchnama (witness statement) and police investigation—lacked proper corroboration and independent witness support required under Indian Evidence Act Sections 104-105. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C. Court, Umarpada (Surat) acquitted the accused Avinashbhai Ukkalbhai Vasava of charges under IPC Section 281 (rash/negligent driving). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence—particularly the panchnama (witness statement) and police investigation—lacked proper corroboration and independent witness support required under Indian Evidence Act Sections 104-105. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, UMARPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case