Government of Gujarat vs ANKITBHAI DHEDIYABHAI GAMIT Advocate - A A GAMIT — 935/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP060010122026

Filing Number

935/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

935/2026

Registration Date

06-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

11824004252789

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.ANKITBHAI DHEDIYABHAI GAMIT Advocate - A A GAMIT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The Gujarat High Court accepted the accused's plea bargaining petition under Section 265-C of the CrPC, allowing him to maintain a presumption of innocence while accepting conviction under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 61(1)(b) and MV Act Section 185. The court sentenced him to 7 months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, considering his good conduct, age, and socio-economic circumstances while maintaining the principle that the plea bargain resulted in mutual satisfaction between all parties. 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. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 935/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Gujarat High Court accepted the accused's plea bargaining petition under Section 265-C of the CrPC, allowing him to maintain a presumption of innocence while accepting conviction under Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 61(1)(b) and MV Act Section 185. The court sentenced him to 7 months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, considering his good conduct, age, and socio-economic circumstances while maintaining the principle that the plea bargain resulted in mutual satisfaction between all parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case