INDRAJITSINH MULTANSINH RATHOD vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT — 34/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 480. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJBH050007512026

Filing Number

34/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

34/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, VAGRA

Judge

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

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1199035250310

Police Station

DAHEJ MARINE POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 480

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.INDRAJITSINH MULTANSINH RATHOD

    Adv. S R BHATTI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: CRMA No. 34/2026 The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vagra, Bharuch rejected the bail application of Indrajitsinh Multansinh Rathod under Section 480 BNSS. The accused, arrested on 06-03-2026 in connection with FIR No. 310/2025 involving charges of theft and receiving stolen goods, argued he was falsely implicated and posed no flight risk. However, the court found apprehension of hindrance to investigation and high risk of accused absconding, thereby denying bail to prevent witness intimidation and trial delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 34/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRMA No. 34/2026 The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vagra, Bharuch rejected the bail application of Indrajitsinh Multansinh Rathod under Section 480 BNSS. The accused, arrested on 06-03-2026 in connection with FIR No. 310/2025 involving charges of theft and receiving stolen goods, argued he was falsely implicated and posed no flight risk. However, the court found apprehension of hindrance to investigation and high risk of accused absconding, thereby denying bail to prevent witness intimidation and trial delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case