Government of Gujarat vs NITISHKUMAR MONAHARBHAI VASAVA — 902/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP060009772026

Filing Number

902/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

902/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, SONGADH

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11824004253066

Police Station

SONGADH POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NITISHKUMAR MONAHARBHAI VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Summary: The Gujarat High Court granted the accused's plea bargaining petition under IPC Section 265C and CrPC Section 290. The accused was convicted without admitting guilt and sentenced to six months imprisonment with a ₹500 fine, with credit for time served. The court emphasized that the plea bargaining was based on a "mutually satisfactory disposition" agreed upon by all parties, and the accused's presumption of innocence regarding the charged offense was preserved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 902/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Gujarat High Court granted the accused's plea bargaining petition under IPC Section 265C and CrPC Section 290. The accused was convicted without admitting guilt and sentenced to six months imprisonment with a ₹500 fine, with credit for time served. The court emphasized that the plea bargaining was based on a "mutually satisfactory disposition" agreed upon by all parties, and the accused's presumption of innocence regarding the charged offense was preserved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case