Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

R T VACHHANI

436 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 401–436.

BHAVESHBHAI SAMBHUBHAI RABARI THRO VALIBEN SAMBHUBHAI RABARIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Bhaveshbhai Sambhubhai Rabari was preventively detained on 10‑12‑2025 under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a ‘dangerous person’. He challenged the order through a petition filed by his mother, Valiben Rabari, arguing that no material showed any disturbance to public order

RAHULKUMAR JERAMBHAI SOLANKI THROUGH JAYDIP JERAMBHAI SOLANKIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Rahulkumar Jerambhai Solanki challenged a detention order dated 15‑12‑2025 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 2 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, alleging that he was a "bootlegger" and that his activities threatened public order. The petitioner argued that no material was plac

DIPABEN @BODY VISHALBHAI CHUNARA THRO REKHABEN SATISHBHAI CHUNARAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Dipaben @Body Vishalbhai Chunara was preventively detained on 29‑10‑2025 under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a bootlegger. The detainee, through her mother, challenged the detention order, arguing that no material showed any disturbance to public health, order or tranquil

RAJUBHAI VASURBHAI VAGHOSHI THRO VAGHOSHI HARESHBHAI JILUBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The High Court of Gujarat considered a petition filed by Rajubhai Vasurbhai Vaghoshi, through his nephew, challenging his preventive detention under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. The petitioner argued that no material was placed before the detaining authority to show that h

DINESHKUMAR S/O HEMARAM BISHNOI THRO KRISHAN S/O SURESH SHARMAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Dineshkumar, detained as a "bootlegger" under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, challenged the preventive detention order dated 18‑12‑2025. He argued that the detaining authority had no material showing his activities disturbed public health, order or tranquility, and that the order was passed

LIKHAMA RAM S/O PRABHURAM JAT THRO KRISHAN S/O SURESH SHARMAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Likhama Ram, a bootlegger, was preventively detained on 18‑12‑2025 by the Ahmedabad Police Commissioner under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. He challenged the detention through a petition, arguing that no material showed his activities disturbed public order and that the ord

RAKESH S/O. VASUDEV BHIL (KUVAR) THRO GAJENDRA LOTASING JADHAVversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Rakesh was preventively detained on 28‑11‑2025 as a “sexual offender” under Section 2(ha) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. He challenged the order, arguing that no material showed any disturbance to public order and that the detention was mechanical. The State contended that he was a habit

SACHIN @ SALANG DAHYABHAI PARMAR THRO DINKALSACHINBHAI PARMARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Sachin @ Salang Dahyabhai Parmar was preventively detained on 21‑12‑2025 under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a bootlegger. He challenged the detention through a petition filed by his wife, arguing that no material showed his activities disturbed public order and that the

BADALBHAI VANKARBHAI VASAVA THRO BHAVNABEN BADALBHAI VASAVAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Badalbhai Vankarbhai Vasava was preventively detained on 19‑12‑2025 under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "bootlegger". His wife filed a petition challenging the detention, arguing that no material showed any disturbance to public health, order or tranquility and that the

SAMPAT MOHANLAL DHOBI THRO KOMAL KUNAL DHOBIversusPOLICE COMMISSIONER

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Sampat Mohanlal Dhobi was preventively detained on 12‑12‑2025 by the Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a ‘dangerous person’. The detainee, through his sister, challenged the order, arguing that no material was placed before the authority

TWINKLE S/O JAGMOHAN SHARMAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Twinkle was preventively detained on 20‑12‑2025 as a ‘dangerous person’ under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. He challenged the order, arguing that no material showed any disturbance to public order and that the order was passed mechanically. The State contended that Twinkle

IMRAN @MUDI S/O SHAHBUDDIN USMANI THRO RAFIK USMANI SHAHBUDDINversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Imran Mudi was preventively detained on 22 December 2025 as a ‘dangerous person’ under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. He challenged the order through a petition filed by his brother, arguing that no material was placed before the detaining authority to show that his alleged

ADNAN @R.C. S/O HURODDIN SHEKH THRO SHAIKH SAMIR HURODDINversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Adnan @R.C., detained as a "dangerous person" under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, challenged the preventive detention order dated 17‑12‑2025. The petitioner argued that no material showed any disturbance to public order and that the order was passed mechanically. The State

BHUPENDRAKUMAR NAGINBHAI MAYAVANSHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The appellants Bhupendrabhai Mahyavanshi and Prakash were convicted for the murder of Manish under Sections 302, 120‑B and 201 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and five years respectively. The prosecution’s case was based solely on circumstantial evidence – alleged motive (a love‑affair), a ‘last seen together’ t

STATE OF GUJARATversusDALSINGBHAI DHANABHAI BARIYA

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The State of Gujarat appealed the acquittals of Dalsinh Dhanabhai Bariya and co‑accused in two interrelated land‑dispute cases arising from incidents on 7‑8‑1994, where the accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

STATE OF GUJARATversusLIMBABHAI VAJABHAI KOLI PARMAR

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The State of Gujarat appealed the acquittals of Dalsinh Dhanabhai Bariya and co‑accused in two interrelated land‑dispute cases arising from incidents on 7‑8‑1994, where the accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

STATE OF GUJARATversusMOHMMED @ BATUK KARIMBHAI MEER

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The State of Gujarat appealed the acquittal of two accused, Mahmad alias Batuk Karim Mir and GaCar alias Nazir Valibhai Ghanchi, for the murder of Ganeshnath Mohannath. The prosecution alleged that the accused, acting in concert, stabbed the deceased with a knife over a loan dispute, but the only eyewitnesses were the

STATE OF GUJARATversusGOPI @ BHALABHAI GIRISHBHAI DEVIPUJAK

47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

The Gujarat High Court heard appeals challenging the conviction and death sentence of three accused for gang rape and murder of a married woman. The trial court had sentenced them to death, imprisonment and fines under IPC sections 302, 201, 366 and 376(d). The appellants argued that the prosecution’s case rested on we

JAYANTIBHAI BABABHAI VADIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The Gujarat High Court heard appeals challenging the conviction and death sentence of three accused for gang rape and murder of a married woman. The trial court had sentenced them to death, imprisonment and fines under IPC sections 302, 201, 366 and 376(d). The appellants argued that the prosecution’s case rested on we

SUNIL @ KALIYO BHARATBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH

The case arose from a dispute between a shop‑owner and his landlord that culminated in the stabbing death of a scrap‑seller on 22 March 2006. The appellant‑accused Sunil @ Kaliya Bharatbhai Gupta was convicted of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and a provision of the Bombay Police Act, while co‑accused were acquitted. On appeal,

DEVENDRAKUMAR SHANKARLAL OSWAL (JAIN)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The appellant Sunil @ Kaliya Bharatbhai Gupta was convicted of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and a provision of the Bombay Police Act, while the original complainant Devendrakumar Shankarlal Oswal secured acquittals for co‑accused in related cases. Both the prosecution and defence presented extensive oral and documentary evide

DEVENDRAKUMAR SHANKARLAL OSWAL (JAIN)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The case arose from a dispute between a shop‑owner and his landlord that culminated in the stabbing death of a scrap‑seller on 22 March 2006. The appellant‑accused Sunil @ Kaliya Bharatbhai Gupta was convicted of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and a provision of the Bombay Police Act, while co‑accused were acquitted. On appeal,

GOPI @ BHALABHAI GIRISHBHAI DEVIPUJAKversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The Gujarat High Court heard appeals challenging the conviction and death sentence of three accused for gang rape and murder of a married woman. The trial court had sentenced them to death, imprisonment and fines under IPC sections 302, 201, 366 and 376(d). The appellants argued that the prosecution’s case rested on we

LALABHAI @ LALO PAGI MASURBHAI PAGIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

LalaBhai @ Lalo Pagi Masurbhai Pagi filed an application seeking condonation of a 3,181‑day delay in filing a criminal appeal against the State of Gujarat. The High Court heard counsel for both sides and examined the reasons for the delay. The court found that the applicant had established sufficient cause for the dela

SADDAMHUSEN @ IRFAN ABDUL AZIZ RAYNIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

The appellant, Saddamhusen @ Irfan Abdul Aziz Rayni, was convicted in a criminal case and filed a criminal appeal (No. 2851 of 2025) along with a miscellaneous application for suspension of sentence. The appeal was being heard before a two‑judge bench of the Gujarat High Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, t

VINOD DEVJIBHAI PANSULversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

56-DISPOSED AT ADMISSION STAGE

The petitioner, Vinod Devjibhai Pansul, a convicted prisoner, filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking direction for remission of his sentence. The Court considered the State Government's modified remission policy and the need for timely consideration of the applicant's case. It held that the State Authority

ARVINDBHAI @ BHADABHAI SHANABHAI @ SHANKARBHAI CHAUHANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The appellant was convicted under the IPC, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the POCSO Act for raping an 11‑year‑old girl belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. The prosecution relied on the child’s testimony, medical examination showing hymen rupture and a vaginal wall tear, and forensic evidence of blood and semen on

STATE OF GUJARATversusGOVINDBHAI MAVJIBHAI CHOVATIYA

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The State of Gujarat appealed the acquittal of four accused who were charged with murder, dowry death and related offences after the deceased Rasilaben was found strangled in a farm shed. The prosecution presented medical evidence confirming homicidal death by strangulation and alleged that the accused had subjected th

STATE OF GUJARATversusMERAMAN KARA MER

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The State appealed the acquittal of Meraman Kara Mer and others for alleged cruelty, abetment of suicide and dowry death. The deceased, Puriben, was found dead in a well after alleged harassment by her husband for dowry. The prosecution presented oral testimonies of family members and extensive documentary evidence, bu

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search