JAYANTILA L RAYCHANDBHAI PATEL vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - R P VAISHNAV — 223/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJBK010007242026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
223/2026
Filing Date
25-02-2026
Registration No
223/2026
Registration Date
25-02-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11195035250534
Police Station
PALANPUR TALUKA POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAYANTILA L RAYCHANDBHAI PATEL
Adv. M M SINDHI
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - R P VAISHNAV
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 13-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 11-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 10-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 07-03-2026 | ORDER |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Sessions Judge rejected the applicant Jayantilal Raychandbhai Patel's anticipatory bail application in a corporate dispute case involving alleged forgery and misappropriation of company property. The court found a prima facie case against the applicant for charges under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, and 114 IPC, noting that he and co-accused failed to account for company profits, transferred properties to relatives, and remained absent during investigation despite notice, making custodial interrogation necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Sessions Judge rejected the applicant Jayantilal Raychandbhai Patel's anticipatory bail application in a corporate dispute case involving alleged forgery and misappropriation of company property. The court found a prima facie case against the applicant for charges under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, and 114 IPC, noting that he and co-accused failed to account for company profits, transferred properties to relatives, and remained absent during investigation despite notice, making custodial interrogation necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts