KEVAL BHARATBHAI FEKAT vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT — 33/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 480. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 16th March 2026.
CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC
CNR: GJBH050007362026
Filing Number
33/2026
Filing Date
13-Mar-2026
Registration No
33/2026
Registration Date
13-Mar-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, VAGRA
Judge
1-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 12-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11199035250310
Police Station
DAHEJ MARINE POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KEVAL BHARATBHAI FEKAT
Adv. P M DAVE
-
2.KISHAN GOKALBHAI DESAY
-
3.HARDIK DINESHBHAI KAILA
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
The Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected the bail application filed by Keval Bharatbhai Fefar, Kishanbhai Gokalbhai Desai, and Hardik Dineshbhai Kela in connection with FIR No. 310/2025 (Dahej Marine Police Station) for offences under BNS Sections 316(3), 61(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 317(2). The court found apprehension of hindrance to investigation and high flight risk, noting that the accused allegedly purchased stolen material at unreasonably low prices from a company that doesn't manufacture the product, and the company owner remains absconding, which could compromise witness safety. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 33/2026
The Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected the bail application filed by Keval Bharatbhai Fefar, Kishanbhai Gokalbhai Desai, and Hardik Dineshbhai Kela in connection with FIR No. 310/2025 (Dahej Marine Police Station) for offences under BNS Sections 316(3), 61(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 317(2). The court found apprehension of hindrance to investigation and high flight risk, noting that the accused allegedly purchased stolen material at unreasonably low prices from a company that doesn't manufacture the product, and the company owner remains absconding, which could compromise witness safety. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts