JANAKSINH SHETANSINH CHAUHAN vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - P M TRIVEDI — 725/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJAH010018542026

Filing Number

725/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

725/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

Ahmedabad District

Judge

4-9th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11191028250596

Police Station

VEJALPUR POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 316(2),318(4)
Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 66(D)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JANAKSINH SHETANSINH CHAUHAN

    Adv. D M CHAUDHARY

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Gujarat High Court denied bail to petitioner Janaksinh Shetansinh Chauhan in a serious economic offences case involving alleged stock market fraud worth approximately ₹7.06 crores. The court found prima facie evidence of organized financial crime, including unauthorized bank transactions and misappropriation of investor funds, determining that the gravity of charges and flight risk warranted continued custody pending trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    9th Addl District Judge

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    9th Addl District Judge

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 725/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Gujarat High Court denied bail to petitioner Janaksinh Shetansinh Chauhan in a serious economic offences case involving alleged stock market fraud worth approximately ₹7.06 crores. The court found prima facie evidence of organized financial crime, including unauthorized bank transactions and misappropriation of investor funds, determining that the gravity of charges and flight risk warranted continued custody pending trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case