PREM ALIAS HUDO SUNDAJI THAKOR vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - P M TRIVEDI — 571/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 16th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJAH010012772026
Filing Number
571/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
571/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
Court
Ahmedabad District
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11191002250424
Police Station
RANIP POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD CITY
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PREM ALIAS HUDO SUNDAJI THAKOR
Adv. H S PARMAR
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - P M TRIVEDI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
ORDER
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 09-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 06-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 03-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CRMA No. 571/2026 The court granted regular bail to Prem alias Hudo Sundaji Thakor, accused of murder (BNS §103(1), 54 and Gujarat Police Act §135(1)), finding that the investigating officer failed to comply with the mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) to communicate grounds of arrest to the accused or his relatives. The court determined that no written or meaningful oral communication of arrest grounds occurred, rendering the arrest illegal despite the serious nature of charges. The judgment directs the Superintendent of Police and Magistrate to ensure strict future compliance with Supreme Court directives on arrest procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CRMA No. 571/2026 The court granted regular bail to Prem alias Hudo Sundaji Thakor, accused of murder (BNS §103(1), 54 and Gujarat Police Act §135(1)), finding that the investigating officer failed to comply with the mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) to communicate grounds of arrest to the accused or his relatives. The court determined that no written or meaningful oral communication of arrest grounds occurred, rendering the arrest illegal despite the serious nature of charges. The judgment directs the Superintendent of Police and Magistrate to ensure strict future compliance with Supreme Court directives on arrest procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts