Government of Gujarat vs BIPINBHAI VICKY CHHOTELAL DAHAYAK Advocate - V C BODANA — 2395/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,106(1),. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 25th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSR120042532025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2395/2025
Filing Date
16-07-2025
Registration No
2395/2025
Registration Date
16-07-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, KATHOR
Judge
1-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11214020251532
Police Station
KAMREJ POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
BIPINBHAI VICKY CHHOTELAL DAHAYAK Advocate - V C BODANA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 27-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 11-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 10-11-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Bipinbhai alias Vicky Chhotelal Dahayak, of charges under IPC Sections 281, 106(1), and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 177 and 184, finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accident was caused by the accused's rash or negligent driving. The court noted that witnesses could not provide specific details about the vehicle's speed, and evidence suggested the rickshaw's tire burst due to road conditions, which amounted to an accident rather than criminal negligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Bipinbhai alias Vicky Chhotelal Dahayak, of charges under IPC Sections 281, 106(1), and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 177 and 184, finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accident was caused by the accused's rash or negligent driving. The court noted that witnesses could not provide specific details about the vehicle's speed, and evidence suggested the rickshaw's tire burst due to road conditions, which amounted to an accident rather than criminal negligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts