SUMITABEN WD/O MUKESHBHAI GANGDAS VASOYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT GN Advocate - J J PARMAR — 166/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 30th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJBH010005182026
Filing Number
166/2026
Filing Date
02-03-2026
Registration No
166/2026
Registration Date
02-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BHARUCH
Judge
6-5th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
64
Police Station
NABIPUR POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2014
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SUMITABEN WD/O MUKESHBHAI GANGDAS VASOYA
Adv. K B MISTRY
Respondent(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT GN Advocate - J J PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 6-5th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 23-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 20-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 18-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: FPA 166/2026 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Court, Bharuch rejected the petitioner Sumitaben's application for 60-day interim bail under BNS Section 483(2). Key Reasoning: The court found that while the petitioner claimed medical grounds (requiring private hospital treatment for a uterine condition) and highlighted her young child's needs, the serious nature of the charges—premeditated murder of her husband in conspiracy with co-accused—weighed against granting bail. The court noted the petitioner's prior non-appearance during trial in the earlier related case and determined that releasing her on bail posed flight risk and court-attendance concerns, outweighing her health and family circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: FPA 166/2026 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Court, Bharuch rejected the petitioner Sumitaben's application for 60-day interim bail under BNS Section 483(2). Key Reasoning: The court found that while the petitioner claimed medical grounds (requiring private hospital treatment for a uterine condition) and highlighted her young child's needs, the serious nature of the charges—premeditated murder of her husband in conspiracy with co-accused—weighed against granting bail. The court noted the petitioner's prior non-appearance during trial in the earlier related case and determined that releasing her on bail posed flight risk and court-attendance concerns, outweighing her health and family circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts