SUBHASHBHAI BHAILALBHAI PATEL vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - P M TRIVEDI — 696/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 13th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJAH010017812026
Filing Number
696/2026
Filing Date
10-Mar-2026
Registration No
696/2026
Registration Date
10-Mar-2026
Court
Ahmedabad District
Judge
4-9th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
13-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 31-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11191002260029
Police Station
RANIP POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD CITY
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SUBHASHBHAI BHAILALBHAI PATEL
Adv. M V PATEL
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - P M TRIVEDI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary of Case 696/2026 Court Decision: The court rejected the bail petition of Subhashbhai Bhailalbhai Patel in a case involving serious criminal charges under IPC Section 326 (causing hurt by fire/corrosive substance) and related sections. The court found that the accused committed a violent crime against a woman and her child, had attempted to conceal evidence, and posed a risk of witness tampering and flight from justice. Applying established bail jurisprudence considering the gravity of offences, criminal conduct, and threat to justice, the court held that bail was not warranted and the accused should remain in custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Mar-2026
Disposed
9th Addl District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 696/2026
Summary of Case 696/2026 Court Decision: The court rejected the bail petition of Subhashbhai Bhailalbhai Patel in a case involving serious criminal charges under IPC Section 326 (causing hurt by fire/corrosive substance) and related sections. The court found that the accused committed a violent crime against a woman and her child, had attempted to conceal evidence, and posed a risk of witness tampering and flight from justice. Applying established bail jurisprudence considering the gravity of offences, criminal conduct, and threat to justice, the court held that bail was not warranted and the accused should remain in custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts