JAYANTIBHAI URFE DENI KARSHANBHAI VAGHARI (DEVIPUJAK) vs THE STATE Advocate - J C PATEL — 26/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483(1). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 24th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJAH240000652026
Filing Number
26/2026
Filing Date
22-01-2026
Registration No
26/2026
Registration Date
22-01-2026
Court
Addl. Court Dholka
Judge
1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11192020220007
Police Station
Dholka Town Police Station
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAYANTIBHAI URFE DENI KARSHANBHAI VAGHARI (DEVIPUJAK)
Respondent(s)
THE STATE Advocate - J C PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 20-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 18-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 17-03-2026 | ORDER |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The court rejected the accused's application to modify temporary bail conditions in a POCSO case involving serious offences under IPC sections 363, 366, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 323, 506(2) and POCSO Act sections 4, 5(l), 6, 8. The accused sought to be released on personal bond only, citing financial hardship and inability to furnish the required Rs. 10,000 surety. The court found the reasons unsatisfactory and held that the serious nature of the offence and criminal antecedents made it unfit to exercise discretionary powers in the accused's favour, thereby rejecting the modification application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the accused's application to modify temporary bail conditions in a POCSO case involving serious offences under IPC sections 363, 366, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 323, 506(2) and POCSO Act sections 4, 5(l), 6, 8. The accused sought to be released on personal bond only, citing financial hardship and inability to furnish the required Rs. 10,000 surety. The court found the reasons unsatisfactory and held that the serious nature of the offence and criminal antecedents made it unfit to exercise discretionary powers in the accused's favour, thereby rejecting the modification application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts