THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs RUDHRAX JAYESHKUMAR JAYSVAL Advocate - K B BHARWAD — 228/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 223(B). Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAR050002762026

Filing Number

228/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

228/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, MALPUR

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11188006260019

Police Station

MALPUR POLICE STATION – ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 223(B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RUDHRAX JAYESHKUMAR JAYSVAL Advocate - K B BHARWAD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court held that the accused cannot be discharged under IPC Section 223(b) when charges involve student misconduct, as such offenses require cognizance by competent public officers or administrators. The court ruled that where multiple charges arise from a single transaction and at least one charge is not barred by Section 215, all charges must proceed together and cannot be separated; accordingly, the accused's discharge petition was rejected and the case was remitted for trial under IPC Section 481. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 228/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court held that the accused cannot be discharged under IPC Section 223(b) when charges involve student misconduct, as such offenses require cognizance by competent public officers or administrators. The court ruled that where multiple charges arise from a single transaction and at least one charge is not barred by Section 215, all charges must proceed together and cannot be separated; accordingly, the accused's discharge petition was rejected and the case was remitted for trial under IPC Section 481. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case