SHAKIB MOHAMMAD SON OF MOHAMMAD YASIN vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - P M TRIVEDI — 674/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJAH010015592026

Filing Number

674/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

674/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

Ahmedabad District

Judge

2-10th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11191044250337

Police Station

GHATLODIA POLICE STATION- AHMEDABAD CITY

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A),65(E),81,83,98(2),116(B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHAKIB MOHAMMAD SON OF MOHAMMAD YASIN

    Adv. K P PAREKH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - P M TRIVEDI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 674/2026 Court Decision: The court dismissed Shakib Mohammad's anticipatory bail application. The judge found that the applicant was involved in illegal prohibited liquor trafficking (300 bottles worth ₹9,27,000), had been absconding since the offense date, and that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation. The court rejected the parity argument based on co-accused bail grants, noting the applicant's distinct circumstances of evasion and the inter-state nature of the crime requiring thorough investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    10th Addl District Judge

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 674/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 674/2026 Court Decision: The court dismissed Shakib Mohammad's anticipatory bail application. The judge found that the applicant was involved in illegal prohibited liquor trafficking (300 bottles worth ₹9,27,000), had been absconding since the offense date, and that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation. The court rejected the parity argument based on co-accused bail grants, noting the applicant's distinct circumstances of evasion and the inter-state nature of the crime requiring thorough investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case