THALE SUJIT SANTOSH vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - P M TRIVEDI — 169/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 01st April 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJAH010003702026
Filing Number
169/2026
Filing Date
17-01-2026
Registration No
169/2026
Registration Date
17-01-2026
Court
Ahmedabad District
Judge
5-5th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11191028250559
Police Station
VEJALPUR POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THALE SUJIT SANTOSH
Adv. K R SHARMA
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - P M TRIVEDI
ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT
Hearing History
Judge: 5-5th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 27-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 25-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 24-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, rejected the anticipatory bail application of 19-year-old Sujit Santosh Thale in an alleged atrocity offense case. The court found a prima facie case against the applicant based on CCTV footage showing his presence at the incident scene and his own admission of inflicting a fist blow on the complainant. The statutory bar under Section 18(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 prevented the court from granting pre-arrest bail, and the parity argument citing co-accused bail was rejected as legally inapplicable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, rejected the anticipatory bail application of 19-year-old Sujit Santosh Thale in an alleged atrocity offense case. The court found a prima facie case against the applicant based on CCTV footage showing his presence at the incident scene and his own admission of inflicting a fist blow on the complainant. The statutory bar under Section 18(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 prevented the court from granting pre-arrest bail, and the parity argument citing co-accused bail was rejected as legally inapplicable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts