PRATAPSINH BHAKHARSINH RAJPUT vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 82/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 09th April 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJAH180003102026
Filing Number
82/2026
Filing Date
06-Mar-2026
Registration No
82/2026
Registration Date
06-Mar-2026
Court
FTC COURT, VIRAMGAM
Judge
1-6th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
09-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 15-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11192017250310
Police Station
DETROJ POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.PRATAPSINH BHAKHARSINH RAJPUT
Adv. M H RAVAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Pratapsinh Bhakharsinh Rajput, who was accused of illegally supplying liquor under the Prohibition Act. The court found prima facie evidence of his involvement based on co-accused statements and the need for custodial interrogation at the crucial investigation stage, noting that no evidence showed he was falsely implicated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Apr-2026
Disposed
6th Addl District Judge
-
08-Apr-2026
Order
6th Addl District Judge
-
06-Apr-2026
Order
6th Addl District Judge
-
01-Apr-2026
Hearing
6th Addl District Judge
-
30-Mar-2026
Hearing
6th Addl District Judge
-
25-Mar-2026
Hearing
6th Addl District Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Hearing
6th Addl District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
6th Addl District Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Hearing
6th Addl District Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 82/2026
The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Pratapsinh Bhakharsinh Rajput, who was accused of illegally supplying liquor under the Prohibition Act. The court found prima facie evidence of his involvement based on co-accused statements and the need for custodial interrogation at the crucial investigation stage, noting that no evidence showed he was falsely implicated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts