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-Jan-2026
Registration No
26/2026
Registration Date
22-Jan-2026
Court
Addl. Court Dholka
Judge
1-Addl.district & Sessions Judge
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 16-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11192020220007
Police Station
Dholka Town Police Station
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JAYANTIBHAI URFE DENI KARSHANBHAI VAGHARI (DEVIPUJAK)
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE Advocate - J C PATEL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
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.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
23-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
20-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
07-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
06-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
03-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
02-Mar-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
28-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
27-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
24-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
21-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
20-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
19-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
18-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
17-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
16-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
13-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
12-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
11-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
09-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
07-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
06-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
05-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
04-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
02-Feb-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
30-Jan-2026
Order
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
29-Jan-2026
Hearing
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
28-Jan-2026
Hearing
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
27-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 26/2026
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.
Explore other courts