Government of Gujarat vs KIRANBHAI LAJARASHBHAI VASAVA Advocate - J L GAMIT — 939/2026

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJTP060010162026

Filing Number

939/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

939/2026

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

11824004252760

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.KIRANBHAI LAJARASHBHAI VASAVA Advocate - J L GAMIT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court admitted the accused's plea bargaining application under Section 265C of the CrPC, allowing conviction without admission of guilt while maintaining innocence, drawing inspiration from US practices like "Alford plea." The accused was sentenced to six months imprisonment and fined Rs. 500, with the court emphasizing that such mutually satisfactory dispositions are permissible within existing plea bargaining frameworks, particularly in cases not involving heinous crimes or vulnerable victims. 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. 939/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court admitted the accused's plea bargaining application under Section 265C of the CrPC, allowing conviction without admission of guilt while maintaining innocence, drawing inspiration from US practices like "Alford plea." The accused was sentenced to six months imprisonment and fined Rs. 500, with the court emphasizing that such mutually satisfactory dispositions are permissible within existing plea bargaining frameworks, particularly in cases not involving heinous crimes or vulnerable victims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case