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

Case disposed

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

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 482,

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

17-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

ORDER

11-03-2026

ORDER

10-03-2026

ORDER

07-03-2026

ORDER

Final Orders / Judgements

17-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case