Government of Gujarat vs DANIYELBHAI BALUBHAI GAMIT Advocate - G V VASAVA — 914/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP060009912026

Filing Number

914/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

914/2026

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

11824004252563

Police Station

SONGADH POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 66(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DANIYELBHAI BALUBHAI GAMIT Advocate - G V VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Gujarat High Court approved the accused's plea bargaining application under Section 265C of the CrPC, allowing conviction without admission of guilt while maintaining innocence—a concept modeled on the "Alford plea" recognized in US jurisprudence. The court sentenced the accused to imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 500, considering the socio-economic circumstances and the non-heinous nature of the offense, while directing the court to explore feasibility of incorporating such "mutually satisfactory disposition" provisions within existing legal frameworks. 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. 914/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Gujarat High Court approved the accused's plea bargaining application under Section 265C of the CrPC, allowing conviction without admission of guilt while maintaining innocence—a concept modeled on the "Alford plea" recognized in US jurisprudence. The court sentenced the accused to imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 500, considering the socio-economic circumstances and the non-heinous nature of the offense, while directing the court to explore feasibility of incorporating such "mutually satisfactory disposition" provisions within existing legal frameworks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case